7 ms·

So we should spend the money to directly help these people?

bwb 3y ago
we should spend the money to help all humans, its already going to be bad. We need to move faster and prob manhattan project carbon removal tech
- briantakita 3y ago
  So don't help these people directly but fund large projects instead?
  - bwb 3y ago
    Why does it need to be one thing?
- tomcam 3y ago
  What percentage of Americans’ income should go to these projects? And should we take care of our own citizens first?
  - techsupporter 3y ago
    > should we take care of our own (American) citizens first? We should take care of the planet. We all live on it and catastrophic heat waves and extreme weather are not polite and do not respect the thick black lines we've drawn on maps. For avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely saying that if those of us who are citizens or residents of the United States, European Union (with or without the United Kingdom), Australia, Canada, Japan, and anywhere else anyone might think of needs to take a hit to our net incomes and economic circumstances in order to keep the planet habitable, I am all for it.
    - tomcam 3y ago
      I asked for a percentage.
    - throwaway049 3y ago
      I'm only seeing policies which seem designed to change the behaviour of the less well-off: a daily charge for driving in certain areas that is priced the same whether you are an average Joe in a compact car or millionaire in a super-car is not going to influence the latter.
  - crabkin 3y ago
    Such a project will take care of our citizens. Maybe not "first" because technically it takes care of ALL people first, and therefore no one is "second." The US gov would be in a unique position to do it owing of course to the pool of talent and resources it can draw from. I don't have a clue where you live, but I live in the Mountain West and the water wars are constant issue on peoples minds. Not to mention, changing climate will induce immigration. Where do you think people will immigrate if they can? If your argument is about "American's first" with falling birthrates and neoliberal supremacy and whatnot, you're going to have a whole lot of new neighbors if their climate gets worse, because America first.
    - tomcam 3y ago
      That’s a long answer that doesn’t address my question.
      - crabkin 3y ago
        Addresses the second question. It's impossible to answer your first. And if you're looking for short answers to those sorts of questions, well then you should already know ;)
        tomcam 3y ago
        Why should I already know? I’m not the one volunteering even more of Americans’ hard-won tax dollars to save people in other countries when we have many, many people hurting in our own country. Those in favor of taking more of my money are responsible for presenting a compelling reason to do so.
        crabkin 3y ago
        You are naive if you don't think your tax dollars right now are going to a million things in a million different ways that don't benefit you, and that it's not intentional. In the end such decisions aren't made by convincing people like you or me they work in our favor or the American people's favor. I won't try to convince you. You didn't understand what I meant by "you already know" and you didn't respond to anything I said, just kept parroting your line of reasoning.
  - bwb 3y ago
    We should take care of earthlings first. Then we can help the creatures from Venus. I really hate them though because their flag is red.
hammyhavoc 3y ago
What solutions are available?
- briantakita 3y ago
  What would directly help people in a heat wave on a timescale that matters to them?
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    I don't know, I also don't know if 1bn people could be helped on a timescale that matters to them, hence asking. It's well outside of my area of expertise, but I'm curious.
    - briantakita 3y ago
      How about some tech to provide cooler living spaces for these people?
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Such as what? The article states "Even as power plants burned more coal to provide the power needed to keep people cool, the country experienced a nationwide electricity shortage.", so AC units aren't going to solve the problem.
      - lusus_naturae 3y ago
        Ive always wondered if houses and buildings could be architected to absorb heat and use it for energy Maybe even providing heat proof shelters (like bus stops etc) every x km may help immediately. Maybe.
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Heatproof shelters aren't solving the problem. If you assume the hypothetical impact on well-being to a billion human beings, and potential deaths of 100-300 million human beings, what kind of physical scale are we looking at to shelter a billion human beings assuming one shelter every x km? It's about on a par with only equipping a large commercial airliner with a single oxygen mask. How about the materials required? The scale of manufacturing? The impact of the manufacturing on the environment? The impact of shipping and installing them on the environment? It would sooner make sense to create underground cities, but that's no small endeavour.
vasco 3y ago
I think it's more realistic to move out of areas that will be uninhabitable (edited typo) than fight nature, but that's me. Move north, escape the heat, don't buy property in coast lines or future deserts and emigrate now so your family doesn't have to deal with useless real estate or become climate refugees. Moving now is way easier than in a couple generations. Most people are worried about "the end of the world" when they should be worried about way more practical things which are much more likely.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  The displacement of a billion Indians brings with it its own set of problems.
  - zo1 3y ago
    Maybe we shouldn't have allowed 1 billion of them to accumulate in the first place in such an inhospitable area. This is yet again a direct consequence of technology advances and government meddling that has created a down-the-line humanitarian crisis by propping up unsustainable behavior. We will sadly have either a billion dead bodies, or the rest of the world incurring the cost to house an extra billion.
    - briantakita 3y ago
      > Maybe we shouldn't have allowed 1 billion of them to accumulate in the first place in such an inhospitable area. Was the British Empire was too lenient to their subjects?
      - zo1 3y ago
        I honestly don't get why you have to take such an extreme interpretation of my comment. Since it may not be so obvious, my main criticism was of government in general.
        eldaisfish 3y ago

bwb 3y ago

we should spend the money to help all humans, its already going to be bad. We need to move faster and prob manhattan project carbon removal tech

briantakita 3y ago
So don't help these people directly but fund large projects instead?
- bwb 3y ago
  Why does it need to be one thing?
tomcam 3y ago
What percentage of Americans’ income should go to these projects? And should we take care of our own citizens first?
- techsupporter 3y ago
  > should we take care of our own (American) citizens first? We should take care of the planet. We all live on it and catastrophic heat waves and extreme weather are not polite and do not respect the thick black lines we've drawn on maps. For avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely saying that if those of us who are citizens or residents of the United States, European Union (with or without the United Kingdom), Australia, Canada, Japan, and anywhere else anyone might think of needs to take a hit to our net incomes and economic circumstances in order to keep the planet habitable, I am all for it.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    I asked for a percentage.
  - throwaway049 3y ago
    I'm only seeing policies which seem designed to change the behaviour of the less well-off: a daily charge for driving in certain areas that is priced the same whether you are an average Joe in a compact car or millionaire in a super-car is not going to influence the latter.
- crabkin 3y ago
  Such a project will take care of our citizens. Maybe not "first" because technically it takes care of ALL people first, and therefore no one is "second." The US gov would be in a unique position to do it owing of course to the pool of talent and resources it can draw from. I don't have a clue where you live, but I live in the Mountain West and the water wars are constant issue on peoples minds. Not to mention, changing climate will induce immigration. Where do you think people will immigrate if they can? If your argument is about "American's first" with falling birthrates and neoliberal supremacy and whatnot, you're going to have a whole lot of new neighbors if their climate gets worse, because America first.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    That’s a long answer that doesn’t address my question.
    - crabkin 3y ago
      Addresses the second question. It's impossible to answer your first. And if you're looking for short answers to those sorts of questions, well then you should already know ;)
      - tomcam 3y ago
        Why should I already know? I’m not the one volunteering even more of Americans’ hard-won tax dollars to save people in other countries when we have many, many people hurting in our own country. Those in favor of taking more of my money are responsible for presenting a compelling reason to do so.
        crabkin 3y ago
        You are naive if you don't think your tax dollars right now are going to a million things in a million different ways that don't benefit you, and that it's not intentional. In the end such decisions aren't made by convincing people like you or me they work in our favor or the American people's favor. I won't try to convince you. You didn't understand what I meant by "you already know" and you didn't respond to anything I said, just kept parroting your line of reasoning.
- bwb 3y ago
  We should take care of earthlings first. Then we can help the creatures from Venus. I really hate them though because their flag is red.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

What solutions are available?

briantakita 3y ago
What would directly help people in a heat wave on a timescale that matters to them?
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  I don't know, I also don't know if 1bn people could be helped on a timescale that matters to them, hence asking. It's well outside of my area of expertise, but I'm curious.
  - briantakita 3y ago
    How about some tech to provide cooler living spaces for these people?
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Such as what? The article states "Even as power plants burned more coal to provide the power needed to keep people cool, the country experienced a nationwide electricity shortage.", so AC units aren't going to solve the problem.
    - lusus_naturae 3y ago
      Ive always wondered if houses and buildings could be architected to absorb heat and use it for energy Maybe even providing heat proof shelters (like bus stops etc) every x km may help immediately. Maybe.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Heatproof shelters aren't solving the problem. If you assume the hypothetical impact on well-being to a billion human beings, and potential deaths of 100-300 million human beings, what kind of physical scale are we looking at to shelter a billion human beings assuming one shelter every x km? It's about on a par with only equipping a large commercial airliner with a single oxygen mask. How about the materials required? The scale of manufacturing? The impact of the manufacturing on the environment? The impact of shipping and installing them on the environment? It would sooner make sense to create underground cities, but that's no small endeavour.

vasco 3y ago

I think it's more realistic to move out of areas that will be uninhabitable (edited typo) than fight nature, but that's me. Move north, escape the heat, don't buy property in coast lines or future deserts and emigrate now so your family doesn't have to deal with useless real estate or become climate refugees. Moving now is way easier than in a couple generations. Most people are worried about "the end of the world" when they should be worried about way more practical things which are much more likely.

JimDabell 3y ago
The displacement of a billion Indians brings with it its own set of problems.
- zo1 3y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't have allowed 1 billion of them to accumulate in the first place in such an inhospitable area. This is yet again a direct consequence of technology advances and government meddling that has created a down-the-line humanitarian crisis by propping up unsustainable behavior. We will sadly have either a billion dead bodies, or the rest of the world incurring the cost to house an extra billion.
  - briantakita 3y ago
    > Maybe we shouldn't have allowed 1 billion of them to accumulate in the first place in such an inhospitable area. Was the British Empire was too lenient to their subjects?
    - zo1 3y ago
      I honestly don't get why you have to take such an extreme interpretation of my comment. Since it may not be so obvious, my main criticism was of government in general.
      - eldaisfish 3y ago