6 ms·

> What can an individual do to not suffer? You should be asking what an individual can do to not starve to death or die of over heating. Most answers are: mov

> What can an individual do to not suffer? You should be asking what an individual can do to not starve to death or die of over heating. Most answers are: move to a rich, powerful country not in the danger zone

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Most answers are: move to a rich, powerful country not in the danger zone There might not be any. Migration pressure from uninhabitable areas will keep mounting, and some of the countries in the "danger zone" have nukes.
- iso1631 3y ago
  New Zealand is always the obvious "lifeboat". It's a long way from populated area so difficult to get there, and it's fairly easy to sink any ships that try. It's in the southern hemisphere so will be protected from the majority of nuclear war which would be in the northern hemisphere.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Unless someone with nukes decides to threaten NZ to open up the borders for their people, or else. With global changes this big, we can't expect the usual MAD Mexican Standoff a couple big powers to keep everyone safe. It may be that all nuclear powers (or all that remained after a brief nuclear war) will decide together to politely ask NZ to open up or else.
    - johnchristopher 3y ago
      Or else what ? They half nuke the place they intend to escape to ?
      - scott_w 3y ago
        Have you ever seen a child smash a toy they tried to steal rather than give it back?
        johnchristopher 3y ago
        Can't say that I have. I say the people threatening with nukes here would turn to more subtle methods of invasion, that's their objectives. They won't destroy it because they can't have it. That'd be a waste of nukes. Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ?
        scott_w 3y ago
        > Can't say that I have. Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can." > Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ? It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play.
        johnchristopher 3y ago
        > > Can't say that I have. > Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can." You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ? This is nickelodeon level debate here. > It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play. You are making the extraordinary (and quite childish considering you started with an analogy based on children behavior) claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it. So far, in the real world, no one has used nukes like that. I'd follow the argument but if a guy would throw acid and was in position to throw a nuke over a country they were denied access to it's most likely plausible they have the means and resources to get into this country in a more discrete and safe way (safe as in: he's in a country that wasn't nuked).
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      somewhat ironically, widespread nuclear war might actual pare back human population to a point where emissions dramatically declined.
  - swader999 3y ago
    Its the first place I'm sending my shelter vent seeking drones so don't bother.
  - freedude 3y ago
    much or all of it is under water...
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  If you are invoking rather insane scenarios - why rule out the use of bioweapons? Why rule out geoengineering?
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    What's insane about those scenarios?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Because if large-scale nuclear or biological war is reasonable likely then climate change really doesn't matter anyway. End of the world scenarios are always an easy "sell" but they are usually not helpful for constructive progress. Before nuclear war, lots of constructive things like geoengineering could happen.
      - adrianN 3y ago
        Single countries will have a hard time doing geoengineering at scale. It will be much easier to start a war over local resources, like water.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        You're looking at it from the wrong end. Nuclear war seems unlikely now, but it might become reasonable once half of the world's population is banging on the borders of the other half. Do you think if e.g. India or Pakistan start experiencing lethal wet-bulb temperatures and people there decide to mass-migrate to survivable lands, only to be stopped at the border and denied entry, will those people and these countries just throw their hands up in the air, seeing there's nothing they could do, and accept imminent death? Or maybe they'll try to threaten or force to be let in, using any means available, up to and including nuclear weapons? (This applies to all nuclear-armed countries - I mentioned these two, because AFAIK they'll be the first nuclear powers likely to experience lethal wet-bulb temperatures - but that's not the only way climate change could make a country mass-evacuate, and such other factors could hit other nuclear powers first.)
12907835202 3y ago
What counts as a rich powerful country in this instance? China? Norway? UAE? I feel like they will all fare very differently

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> Most answers are: move to a rich, powerful country not in the danger zone There might not be any. Migration pressure from uninhabitable areas will keep mounting, and some of the countries in the "danger zone" have nukes.

iso1631 3y ago
New Zealand is always the obvious "lifeboat". It's a long way from populated area so difficult to get there, and it's fairly easy to sink any ships that try. It's in the southern hemisphere so will be protected from the majority of nuclear war which would be in the northern hemisphere.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Unless someone with nukes decides to threaten NZ to open up the borders for their people, or else. With global changes this big, we can't expect the usual MAD Mexican Standoff a couple big powers to keep everyone safe. It may be that all nuclear powers (or all that remained after a brief nuclear war) will decide together to politely ask NZ to open up or else.
  - johnchristopher 3y ago
    Or else what ? They half nuke the place they intend to escape to ?
    - scott_w 3y ago
      Have you ever seen a child smash a toy they tried to steal rather than give it back?
      - johnchristopher 3y ago
        Can't say that I have. I say the people threatening with nukes here would turn to more subtle methods of invasion, that's their objectives. They won't destroy it because they can't have it. That'd be a waste of nukes. Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ?
        scott_w 3y ago
        > Can't say that I have. Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can." > Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ? It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play.
        johnchristopher 3y ago
        > > Can't say that I have. > Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can." You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ? This is nickelodeon level debate here. > It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play. You are making the extraordinary (and quite childish considering you started with an analogy based on children behavior) claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it. So far, in the real world, no one has used nukes like that. I'd follow the argument but if a guy would throw acid and was in position to throw a nuke over a country they were denied access to it's most likely plausible they have the means and resources to get into this country in a more discrete and safe way (safe as in: he's in a country that wasn't nuked).
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    somewhat ironically, widespread nuclear war might actual pare back human population to a point where emissions dramatically declined.
- swader999 3y ago
  Its the first place I'm sending my shelter vent seeking drones so don't bother.
- freedude 3y ago
  much or all of it is under water...
RandomLensman 3y ago
If you are invoking rather insane scenarios - why rule out the use of bioweapons? Why rule out geoengineering?
- CalRobert 3y ago
  What's insane about those scenarios?
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Because if large-scale nuclear or biological war is reasonable likely then climate change really doesn't matter anyway. End of the world scenarios are always an easy "sell" but they are usually not helpful for constructive progress. Before nuclear war, lots of constructive things like geoengineering could happen.
    - adrianN 3y ago
      Single countries will have a hard time doing geoengineering at scale. It will be much easier to start a war over local resources, like water.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      You're looking at it from the wrong end. Nuclear war seems unlikely now, but it might become reasonable once half of the world's population is banging on the borders of the other half. Do you think if e.g. India or Pakistan start experiencing lethal wet-bulb temperatures and people there decide to mass-migrate to survivable lands, only to be stopped at the border and denied entry, will those people and these countries just throw their hands up in the air, seeing there's nothing they could do, and accept imminent death? Or maybe they'll try to threaten or force to be let in, using any means available, up to and including nuclear weapons? (This applies to all nuclear-armed countries - I mentioned these two, because AFAIK they'll be the first nuclear powers likely to experience lethal wet-bulb temperatures - but that's not the only way climate change could make a country mass-evacuate, and such other factors could hit other nuclear powers first.)

12907835202 3y ago

What counts as a rich powerful country in this instance? China? Norway? UAE? I feel like they will all fare very differently