3 ms·

Just because of rare (depending on the location even rarer) events you mustn't overrate your personal risk. It's just the same for personal risk of terrorism wh

by TomK32 4y ago

Just because of rare (depending on the location even rarer) events you mustn't overrate your personal risk. It's just the same for personal risk of terrorism which is so rare compared to any other sort of common accident or even personal eating habits.

ljf 4y ago
While tsunamis might well be rare, the impacts of rising sea levels will be felt amongst low lying areas and coastal communities before the end of this century. We will see a lot of property destroyed across the world and large groups of (rich and poor) climate refugees moving to new and safer areas.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  [dead]
- ljf 4y ago
  Reply to person asking: Current estimates are around 2 billion people impacted by 2100 - around 1/4 of the earths estimated population at that time: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/06/rising-seas-could-result-2-billion-refugees-2100 https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/06/rising-seas-could-r...
pixl97 4y ago
When looking at things like long term personal properly ownership it gets difficult to make a good risk assessment. For example, you are a nomad generally sleep in the wilderness. What are the risks of a tree branch falling on you at night over your lifetime, or lighting hitting the tree verses the risk of a hailstorm beating you down. Which provides the less risky shelter. I would not count natural disasters and terrorism on the same scale. For the vast majority of individuals terrorism is so much more low risk that it's nearly a rounding error. Terrorism is generally a pin point. Natural disasters are 'generally' not. A hurricane will not only affect you, it will affect everything around you. All services around you can be shut down for an indefinite period of time leading to a situation where you have no food, water, or shelter. There are also non-individual risks, such as choosing where to build a nuclear plant or hospital. Do you build your hospital, a complex that could remain there for 100+ years, in the path of a potential tsunami? Do you build it in the foothills farther away where it won't be destroyed, but in the meantime makes people go farther to reach it? I personally am not one for having society build 'close' to the ocean. The sea has no respect for property rights, and we just love socializing the insurance of buildings put in much higher risk zones than they should be.

by TomK32 4y ago

ljf 4y ago

While tsunamis might well be rare, the impacts of rising sea levels will be felt amongst low lying areas and coastal communities before the end of this century. We will see a lot of property destroyed across the world and large groups of (rich and poor) climate refugees moving to new and safer areas.

sacrosancty 4y ago
[dead]
ljf 4y ago
Reply to person asking: Current estimates are around 2 billion people impacted by 2100 - around 1/4 of the earths estimated population at that time: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/06/rising-seas-could-result-2-billion-refugees-2100 https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/06/rising-seas-could-r...

pixl97 4y ago

When looking at things like long term personal properly ownership it gets difficult to make a good risk assessment. For example, you are a nomad generally sleep in the wilderness. What are the risks of a tree branch falling on you at night over your lifetime, or lighting hitting the tree verses the risk of a hailstorm beating you down. Which provides the less risky shelter. I would not count natural disasters and terrorism on the same scale. For the vast majority of individuals terrorism is so much more low risk that it's nearly a rounding error. Terrorism is generally a pin point. Natural disasters are 'generally' not. A hurricane will not only affect you, it will affect everything around you. All services around you can be shut down for an indefinite period of time leading to a situation where you have no food, water, or shelter. There are also non-individual risks, such as choosing where to build a nuclear plant or hospital. Do you build your hospital, a complex that could remain there for 100+ years, in the path of a potential tsunami? Do you build it in the foothills farther away where it won't be destroyed, but in the meantime makes people go farther to reach it? I personally am not one for having society build 'close' to the ocean. The sea has no respect for property rights, and we just love socializing the insurance of buildings put in much higher risk zones than they should be.