5 ms·

Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live

Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live particularly well. Also at the massive cost to the surrounding environment. I guess Inuits live in the extreme cold as well, but their entire world population is smaller than the city of Norilsk.

lostmsu 7y ago
> Also at the massive cost to the surrounding environment. Assuming you didn't mean global warming here, there was never much of environment there humans could damage.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > there was never much of environment there humans could damage There’s a lot of ways humans can ruin the environment even without global warming.
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    By "there" I mean Norilsk.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Trust me, global warming does not sound like something bad for citizens of Norilsk.
- est31 7y ago
  There is tons of smog though which is both unpleasant and very bad for the health.
- deforciant 7y ago
  Their buildings are collapsing due to permafrost disappearing :) Also it will release lots of pollution from the ground which will even further worsen environmental situation. So on one point yes, it will be warmer but it will make their life more difficult than it is now :(
  - justAnotherNET 7y ago
    Meanwhile, investing in beach front property in Greenland seems more and more prescient
coldtea 7y ago
>Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live particularly well. People have lived in such places for millennia, before "burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons" was a thing...
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Have they? Norilsk seems to have been founded in the 20th century, so I guess people have been living there during two different millennia, technically. But not before hydrocarbons.
  - qplex 7y ago
    The Paleo-Eskimo, Dorset and Inuit cultures have existed in the Arctic North for over 4500 years.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk. Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk. And why would we know how you "interpreted it" if it wasn't spelt out? And what would be the limits to accept other places as being "like Norilsk"? Cold cities only (e.g. not a cold village)? Cold places in Russia? Cold industrial cities only? Cities that get dark in the artic for months? Would similarly cold places elsewhere count? Does it have to get to -40 celcius or a city that gets to -20 will do? The "most reasonable interpretation of a comment" of what we were already discussing in this thread is that we weren't talking about Norilsk lookalikes, but about whether people could live in such adverse settlements before or are "only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity". That was literally the claim that started the subthread. >Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment. It's not that difficult to not have heard of the Inuit, or to have heard of them but believe they lived if other conditions, or whatever. The "outrage" is rude, and probably violates the same HN recommendation it invokes (if not others too). The parent replied very calmly to a question. HN is global and has people of all places and all ages, including people who know little or nothing about Alaska and the Inuit. And people don't know all kind of basic things if they're not in their interests. Heck, many people can't place basic countries on the map, much less know about the Inuit. Just because someone is a programmer, and reads HN, is no guarantee.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
That is not entirely correct, as there are other options, which happen to be deployed right now, in geographically similar locations: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...

lostmsu 7y ago

> Also at the massive cost to the surrounding environment. Assuming you didn't mean global warming here, there was never much of environment there humans could damage.

saagarjha 7y ago
> there was never much of environment there humans could damage There’s a lot of ways humans can ruin the environment even without global warming.
- lostmsu 7y ago
  By "there" I mean Norilsk.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

Trust me, global warming does not sound like something bad for citizens of Norilsk.

est31 7y ago
There is tons of smog though which is both unpleasant and very bad for the health.
deforciant 7y ago
Their buildings are collapsing due to permafrost disappearing :) Also it will release lots of pollution from the ground which will even further worsen environmental situation. So on one point yes, it will be warmer but it will make their life more difficult than it is now :(
- justAnotherNET 7y ago
  Meanwhile, investing in beach front property in Greenland seems more and more prescient

coldtea 7y ago

>Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live particularly well. People have lived in such places for millennia, before "burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons" was a thing...

perl4ever 7y ago
Have they? Norilsk seems to have been founded in the 20th century, so I guess people have been living there during two different millennia, technically. But not before hydrocarbons.
- qplex 7y ago
  The Paleo-Eskimo, Dorset and Inuit cultures have existed in the Arctic North for over 4500 years.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk. Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk. And why would we know how you "interpreted it" if it wasn't spelt out? And what would be the limits to accept other places as being "like Norilsk"? Cold cities only (e.g. not a cold village)? Cold places in Russia? Cold industrial cities only? Cities that get dark in the artic for months? Would similarly cold places elsewhere count? Does it have to get to -40 celcius or a city that gets to -20 will do? The "most reasonable interpretation of a comment" of what we were already discussing in this thread is that we weren't talking about Norilsk lookalikes, but about whether people could live in such adverse settlements before or are "only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity". That was literally the claim that started the subthread. >Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment. It's not that difficult to not have heard of the Inuit, or to have heard of them but believe they lived if other conditions, or whatever. The "outrage" is rude, and probably violates the same HN recommendation it invokes (if not others too). The parent replied very calmly to a question. HN is global and has people of all places and all ages, including people who know little or nothing about Alaska and the Inuit. And people don't know all kind of basic things if they're not in their interests. Heck, many people can't place basic countries on the map, much less know about the Inuit. Just because someone is a programmer, and reads HN, is no guarantee.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

That is not entirely correct, as there are other options, which happen to be deployed right now, in geographically similar locations: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...