5 ms·

What would make sense, but I think be laughed out of the room, is to build back a few of these towns as fortified villages with substantial fire-breaks maintain

What would make sense, but I think be laughed out of the room, is to build back a few of these towns as fortified villages with substantial fire-breaks maintained around them. You could preserve a small town life with abundant wilderness around, but it would probably make more sense to consolidate many of these tiny places (less than 1k people) into something like a handful of small towns of 10k. But I don’t think the folks who live in rural CA want to live in a European-style village with big fields separating them from the woods, they want to live in the forest and away from other people. I don’t think it’s wrong to allow people to take risks if they know what they are getting into. At the same time, there’s a point where it doesn’t make sense for the state to socialize the cost of rescuing / protecting people who choose to take that level of risk.

themitigating 4y ago
Even if it's not the state insurance will go up for everyone, building materials could go up, etc. No man is an island right?
- smeagull 4y ago
  Mann is an island.
sfvegandude 4y ago
>I don’t think it’s wrong to allow people to take risks if they know what they are getting into. At the same time, there’s a point where it doesn’t make sense for the state to socialize the cost of rescuing / protecting people who choose to take that level of risk. You just described how I feel about the entire state of Florida.
carabiner 4y ago
> Or would that money be better spent fortifying a larger, more urban community outside of a high-risk fire zone or restoring forests and watersheds damaged by wildfire, rather than, say, paying for new underground power lines and broadband internet service in the mountains of Greenville? This question is entirely what the article discusses. Moral, economic considerations are discussed. You should read it.
- burlesona 4y ago
  I did read the article, and I didn’t think that one sentence in the entire story really constituted digging into the idea of intentionally closing down several small towns and combined them into a new intentionally fire-resistant settlement, nor why that idea would be resisted by the people in the towns. Your comment is rude, and against HN guidelines.
paulcole 4y ago
It’s going to be an unpopular opinion, but caring about what people want is a luxury that we just won’t have (to anywhere near the extent we have it today) in the near future as climate change continues. Many millions of people in the US are going to have kids and grandkids who have a drastically different life than they imagine for them. And not in a good way.
- autoexec 4y ago
  This is the truth. What's really sad is that we could be saving so much money, energy, and resources preparing for that future but too many people are doing their hardest to deny what is coming. If you live in an area that constantly floods, where clean water is increasingly scarce, or which is frequently on literal fire you'd be crazy to stay and keep rebuilding, but even worse is that people are still investing and developing in these types of locations as well. Eventually the government is going to have to step in and relocate people, and leave anyone who stays to their own fate, but you'd think more people would see what's coming and save themselves a lot of pain and suffering. Don't waste your time and money on soon to be less than worthless property, find a nice place somewhere safer, and get in while you can.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    This is an interesting comment to read. I can't say I agree, but the wording unironically helps to give me some more insight. The "smart city" I cringe at the thought of living the rest of my life in is seen on the other side as an "ark".
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Climate change is going to displace an unfathomable amount of people all around the world. If you aren't already living in an 'ark' you soon will be. A lot of people will be extremely desperate and I expect we'll see a lot of them die right outside of our borders. While the US should do its part to take in as many as it can we'll be dealing with it ourselves. The western US is facing increasing desertification, clean water is becoming more difficult to find, and the temps are rising which means eventually there will be a lot of people forced inland and out of the western US. It's going to get a lot more crowded around here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RC_ITR 4y ago
> I don’t think it’s wrong to allow people to take risks if they know what they are getting into. The problem is that people always agree to this until their house burns and their child dies and then they feel like society didn’t do enough to protect them. It’s just the human condition.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
Idyllwild, CA constructed and maintained substantial firebreaks, which likely helped save it from the Cranston Fire in 2018. It still feels very much in the forest. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-cranston-fire-20180728-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-cranston-fi...
seiferteric 4y ago
> there’s a point where it doesn’t make sense for the state to socialize the cost of rescuing / protecting people who choose to take that level of risk. I wonder if that opinion will apply to all the people that will be inundated by water in the bay area in the next century.
stickfigure 4y ago
Rural people can still live in the forest and away from other people. They just need to be willing to cut down every tree within 100' of their home and use fire-resistant landscaping. The problem is that the trees are pretty.

themitigating 4y ago

Even if it's not the state insurance will go up for everyone, building materials could go up, etc. No man is an island right?

smeagull 4y ago
Mann is an island.

sfvegandude 4y ago

>I don’t think it’s wrong to allow people to take risks if they know what they are getting into. At the same time, there’s a point where it doesn’t make sense for the state to socialize the cost of rescuing / protecting people who choose to take that level of risk. You just described how I feel about the entire state of Florida.

carabiner 4y ago

> Or would that money be better spent fortifying a larger, more urban community outside of a high-risk fire zone or restoring forests and watersheds damaged by wildfire, rather than, say, paying for new underground power lines and broadband internet service in the mountains of Greenville? This question is entirely what the article discusses. Moral, economic considerations are discussed. You should read it.

burlesona 4y ago
I did read the article, and I didn’t think that one sentence in the entire story really constituted digging into the idea of intentionally closing down several small towns and combined them into a new intentionally fire-resistant settlement, nor why that idea would be resisted by the people in the towns. Your comment is rude, and against HN guidelines.

paulcole 4y ago

It’s going to be an unpopular opinion, but caring about what people want is a luxury that we just won’t have (to anywhere near the extent we have it today) in the near future as climate change continues. Many millions of people in the US are going to have kids and grandkids who have a drastically different life than they imagine for them. And not in a good way.

autoexec 4y ago
This is the truth. What's really sad is that we could be saving so much money, energy, and resources preparing for that future but too many people are doing their hardest to deny what is coming. If you live in an area that constantly floods, where clean water is increasingly scarce, or which is frequently on literal fire you'd be crazy to stay and keep rebuilding, but even worse is that people are still investing and developing in these types of locations as well. Eventually the government is going to have to step in and relocate people, and leave anyone who stays to their own fate, but you'd think more people would see what's coming and save themselves a lot of pain and suffering. Don't waste your time and money on soon to be less than worthless property, find a nice place somewhere safer, and get in while you can.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  This is an interesting comment to read. I can't say I agree, but the wording unironically helps to give me some more insight. The "smart city" I cringe at the thought of living the rest of my life in is seen on the other side as an "ark".
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Climate change is going to displace an unfathomable amount of people all around the world. If you aren't already living in an 'ark' you soon will be. A lot of people will be extremely desperate and I expect we'll see a lot of them die right outside of our borders. While the US should do its part to take in as many as it can we'll be dealing with it ourselves. The western US is facing increasing desertification, clean water is becoming more difficult to find, and the temps are rising which means eventually there will be a lot of people forced inland and out of the western US. It's going to get a lot more crowded around here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RC_ITR 4y ago

> I don’t think it’s wrong to allow people to take risks if they know what they are getting into. The problem is that people always agree to this until their house burns and their child dies and then they feel like society didn’t do enough to protect them. It’s just the human condition.

tomjakubowski 4y ago

Idyllwild, CA constructed and maintained substantial firebreaks, which likely helped save it from the Cranston Fire in 2018. It still feels very much in the forest. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-cranston-fire-20180728-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-cranston-fi...

seiferteric 4y ago

> there’s a point where it doesn’t make sense for the state to socialize the cost of rescuing / protecting people who choose to take that level of risk. I wonder if that opinion will apply to all the people that will be inundated by water in the bay area in the next century.

stickfigure 4y ago

Rural people can still live in the forest and away from other people. They just need to be willing to cut down every tree within 100' of their home and use fire-resistant landscaping. The problem is that the trees are pretty.