
Reasons of State: Why Didn't Denmark Sell Greenland? - monort
http://www.gwern.net/Greenland
======
interfixus
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.

------
caf
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.

~~~
SamReidHughes
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.

------
thaumasiotes
> 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.

~~~
hackuser
> 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.

~~~
meric
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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiali...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiality)

[2] See nursing homes, poor public schools.

~~~
danharaj
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.

~~~
meric
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.

~~~
danharaj
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.

~~~
meric
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](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.

------
clamprecht
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.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
This is why, last time I checked, Gwern's site explicitly says that they
aren't interested in selling what you want to buy.

------
caf
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.

------
IsaacL
_" 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?

~~~
komaromy
A better analogy would be an offer to buy Alaska, which would have a good shot
at being agreed to.

------
scythe
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.

~~~
gwern
> If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be

Why's that?

~~~
kethinov
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.

~~~
fredkbloggs
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.

~~~
kethinov
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.

------
steve19
Has a sovereign state selling off land to another sovereign state ever been
considered profitable in hindsight?

~~~
kryptiskt
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.

~~~
tsotha
You could make almost exactly the same argument for Napoleon's sale to the US
of French territories in North America.

------
abricot
It may or may not have had something to do with the sale of the Danish West
Indies to USA in 1917.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies)

------
qq66
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?

~~~
gwern
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.

------
Eric_WVGG
maybe they’re banking on global warming to turn it into a vacation hotspot, or
a continent-sized refugee camp

c'mon you were thinking it too

~~~
JacobAldridge
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."_

