4 ms·
> I'm going to single out "Sea levels are rising." for special mention - entire cities can be constructed in 40 years (I'm thinking Shenzhen); 9 inches over a c
by whytaka 7y ago
> I'm going to single out "Sea levels are rising." for special mention - entire cities can be constructed in 40 years (I'm thinking Shenzhen); 9 inches over a century isn't that scary in context of all the other radical change that has happened over the same period.
The problem isn't the sea-level rising, it's the people that would be displaced, migrate over, and cause havoc to the systems of regions unprepared for such a massive ingress. Consider that there are housing crises around the world today and these cities aren't built for them today.
- api 7y agoLook at the social and political havoc caused by the European refugee crisis in recent years for a concrete example.
- enraged_camel 7y agoYep. Europe can barely deal with a few million refugees from Middle East. Just wait until they start getting tens of million, if not more, from the Indian subcontinent and surrounding coastal countries.
- abathur 7y agoThis. And the possibility space is daunting. And many of the changes can unfold drastically faster than sea level rise. Consider things like: The difference in the number destabilizing European politics, compared to the numbers at risk of displacement via sea level rise. The potential for people to be displaced by shifting weather patterns. How many years of draught, wildfire, dust-storms, crop failure, 500-year floods, weeks-long power outages, etc. will it take to permanently displace people? Will the die-roll throw these effects at low-productivity, low-population areas, or will some hit breadbaskets, transportation nexuses, industrial centers, or cities? Or will the people bearing the brunt of these effects stubbornly stay put, and disrupt internal politics by repeatedly rebuilding with taxpayer assistance?