4 ms·

You seem to be imagining that the sea level will smoothly rise mm by mm over a century and that people will gradually and peacefully abandon the shoreline and m

You seem to be imagining that the sea level will smoothly rise mm by mm over a century and that people will gradually and peacefully abandon the shoreline and move inland. It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities (which are after all massive investments) and and that those defenses will work well right up until they catastrophically fail in a major storm (e.g. see Katrina).

xienze 5y ago
> It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities Honestly, this part right here is what makes me very skeptical about the magnitude of the problem as it’s communicated to the proles. We’ve heard countless times how Manhattan will essentially be underwater in XX years, a foregone conclusion, yet no one has made a serious proposal to build sea walls around it or other valuable coastal areas. That and the fact that the US is obsessed with importing countless numbers of foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. I mean it would only make sense to limit third world immigration to first world countries as long as possible if we’re concerned about carbon footprint, wouldn’t it? The population decrease in first world countries would be an added bonus as far as climate change goes. Yet we do the complete opposite. Curious!
- nerdponx 5y ago
  foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. Citation needed?
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Americans have one of the highest co2 footprint per capita, it's well known and self explanatory.
betwixthewires 5y ago
I'm not imagining anything, I'm only asking questions. Which you have not answered BTW.
- allturtles 5y ago
  Surely when you say "This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years" you are imagining a process by which this will happen. You didn't ask me any questions, you asked nerdponx, and I chose to join the conversation. What I posted above was my answer to "Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly?" But given the way are responding, I'm not sure you're interested in having an honest conversation.
- twiddling 5y ago
  Sealioning...
exporectomy 5y ago
How is it that you can predict the defenses are likely to fail catastrophically but the people building them won't? Is your concern really that other people don't know as much as you about how to build sea walls?
- allturtles 5y ago
  I didn't actually say it was likely, just more likely than a gradual upslope migration in advance of any danger, which seems contrary to all human social behavior that I've ever witnessed. When major storms come through and wreck places that are bound to be wrecked every time the water rises, the political drumbeat is to rebuild. To give up on those places would be to show weakness (See "Jersey Strong / Stronger than the Storm" slogan after Hurricane Sandy). If we could somehow build strong enough defenses to protect all the major coastal population centers from rising waters indefinitely, that would be great, though obviously very expensive. I'm doubtful though. Lots of money and effort was poured into protecting New Orleans, and, in the long run, it didn't work.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    So it really is that you believe people will make the wrong decisions in adapting to the change while you personally know what's right? It makes sense that the general population isn't as smart as you personally because any common ideas they hold are limited to those ideas that are acceptable to a wide range of people. But we do use experts to help make these kinds of decisions for us. It's not all direct democracy with people voting on individual engineering calculations instead of voting to hire an engineer. It my country, we had an earthquake a few years ago which slightly increased the flood risk of a suburb. Instead of building a wall, they forced everyone out and flattened the whole place. I think we're capable of writing off areas of land when they become too risky or expensive to keep using. There are actually some small towns which are expected to be killed off when the only road access to them is inevitably blocked by a major earthquake one-day because it may not be worth rebuilding the road.
    - allturtles 5y ago

xienze 5y ago

> It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities Honestly, this part right here is what makes me very skeptical about the magnitude of the problem as it’s communicated to the proles. We’ve heard countless times how Manhattan will essentially be underwater in XX years, a foregone conclusion, yet no one has made a serious proposal to build sea walls around it or other valuable coastal areas. That and the fact that the US is obsessed with importing countless numbers of foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. I mean it would only make sense to limit third world immigration to first world countries as long as possible if we’re concerned about carbon footprint, wouldn’t it? The population decrease in first world countries would be an added bonus as far as climate change goes. Yet we do the complete opposite. Curious!

nerdponx 5y ago
foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. Citation needed?
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Americans have one of the highest co2 footprint per capita, it's well known and self explanatory.

betwixthewires 5y ago

I'm not imagining anything, I'm only asking questions. Which you have not answered BTW.

allturtles 5y ago
Surely when you say "This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years" you are imagining a process by which this will happen. You didn't ask me any questions, you asked nerdponx, and I chose to join the conversation. What I posted above was my answer to "Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly?" But given the way are responding, I'm not sure you're interested in having an honest conversation.
twiddling 5y ago
Sealioning...

exporectomy 5y ago

How is it that you can predict the defenses are likely to fail catastrophically but the people building them won't? Is your concern really that other people don't know as much as you about how to build sea walls?

allturtles 5y ago
I didn't actually say it was likely, just more likely than a gradual upslope migration in advance of any danger, which seems contrary to all human social behavior that I've ever witnessed. When major storms come through and wreck places that are bound to be wrecked every time the water rises, the political drumbeat is to rebuild. To give up on those places would be to show weakness (See "Jersey Strong / Stronger than the Storm" slogan after Hurricane Sandy). If we could somehow build strong enough defenses to protect all the major coastal population centers from rising waters indefinitely, that would be great, though obviously very expensive. I'm doubtful though. Lots of money and effort was poured into protecting New Orleans, and, in the long run, it didn't work.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  So it really is that you believe people will make the wrong decisions in adapting to the change while you personally know what's right? It makes sense that the general population isn't as smart as you personally because any common ideas they hold are limited to those ideas that are acceptable to a wide range of people. But we do use experts to help make these kinds of decisions for us. It's not all direct democracy with people voting on individual engineering calculations instead of voting to hire an engineer. It my country, we had an earthquake a few years ago which slightly increased the flood risk of a suburb. Instead of building a wall, they forced everyone out and flattened the whole place. I think we're capable of writing off areas of land when they become too risky or expensive to keep using. There are actually some small towns which are expected to be killed off when the only road access to them is inevitably blocked by a major earthquake one-day because it may not be worth rebuilding the road.
  - allturtles 5y ago