3 ms·
Sure, I would agree if we weren't facing the threat of multiple degrees of warming causing climate changes that will threaten to upend the social order and melt
by politician 8y ago
Sure, I would agree if we weren't facing the threat of multiple degrees of warming causing climate changes that will threaten to upend the social order and melt the permafrost within our lifetimes.
If we had room to speculate on the wide variety of disasters that may befall the Earth within the next, say, 200 years, then perhaps hiding underground isn't the optimal best solution.
Aside: I'm sure you'll agree that it'll be easier for Elon to keep his family alive if he's adequately defended. Regardless, he might not have a choice. The third amendment was not always a thing.
- btilly 8y agoMy point remains. Disrupted enough to cause the social order to collapse is a lot less disrupted than disrupted enough to cause the environment to be lethal to be in. As an example of the difference, consider "widespread crop failures followed by food riots causing a general breakdown of transportation networks". The social order is destroyed. But the air is still breathable. And where you live the local crops might even have been fine until pillaged by hungry people. On a side note, the 3rd amendment has only come up in one legal case, and it was decided in that one that the violation of the 3rd amendment happened, but the government had a qualified immunity because a reasonable person would not have known of the rule. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey for the bizarre case.