4 ms·
FWIW, people are underselling this probably because people will give up if you tell them the doomsday scenario. Making it just terrible enough that people can
by belval 6y ago
FWIW, people are underselling this probably because people will give up if you tell them the doomsday scenario.
Making it just terrible enough that people can compare, without talking about straight cataclysm helps ensuring that people at least read the entire article.
- tuatoru 6y agoMaybe. I think it's also because the worst direct consequences (sea level rise induced flooding and loss of arable land, wet bulb temperatures that will kill you if you're exposed for more than an hour) will mainly hit other people in a belt from Northern Brazil through the Sahel, the Middle East and Asia to China up to Harbin. Pretty much all of those people are invisible to westerners. But taking action means making your lifestyle worse: Never flying. Avoiding using a car as much as possible. Making meat a special occasion food (once a year). Buying things that last two or four decades instead of fashion items. "I'm all right, Jack" is the thinking.
- belval 6y agoI would say that's the reason why most people are not taking radical changes, but I doubt that's why the mainstream medias aren't talking about the nightmare scenario, which is what the comment was referring to (I think).
- missedthecue 6y ago"sea level rise induced flooding and loss of arable land" Didn't the Netherlands solve this problem 800 years ago using medieval technology? Their lowest city is 7m below sea level.
- Tepix 6y agoThey are a rich country and have been rich for a long time
- missedthecue 6y agoI would assume that nearly every country has a GNP per capita higher than the netherlands did 800 years ago, and modern construction equipment and techniques would make the cost substantially lower.
- imtringued 6y agoBangladesh would have to build the biggest flood wall in the entire world.