3 ms·

I think a reasonable amount of planning and preparation for emergencies is wise. There will always be a possibility for floods, fires, storms, accidents, electr

I think a reasonable amount of planning and preparation for emergencies is wise. There will always be a possibility for floods, fires, storms, accidents, electrical systems going down, trains loaded with chemicals crashing, riots and civil unrest, wars, etc that makes having some survival resources on hand a wise thing. There are some people who place false hope in government to always be there to save them in an emergency. That said, I strongly believe that the panic felt in some corners specifically about climate change is laughably overstated compared to what its nearly imperceptible impact on peoples' lives will actually be. The current climate change predictions are as accurate as the decades worth of other failed environmental predictions I lived through. Live Life. Find love. Make babies. Make money. Touch grass. Make art. Don't sacrifice your life to even more induced fear.

muzani 3y ago
It's imperceptible in the same way covid was. People spend billions of dollars on mitigating it. Some people spend their life efforts on it. The predictions would ideally fail, and that's because people take them seriously. It's fine for you to not take action, as long as someone does. Singapore props up the land around their area to prevent rising sea levels. Not everyone can do this. Indonesia chooses to migrate their capital city away from Jakarta. It affects some professions - fossil fuels companies will have to become energy companies. As long as the larger organizations consider it a priority, I think we'll be fine. But in many places, they do not, and that's where we have to take action. Like someone said on a meteor thread, if a meteor was going to hit Houston, most people will just ignore the warning.
- junofan 3y ago
  I dunno, the places that spent the least on COVID had the best outcomes. Seems the predictions might’ve just been wrong. We should be careful before spending $12 tn as we did with COVID.
  - muzani 3y ago
    Correlation != causation. It's something we can figure out from calculations. The reason it was a crisis was because of overcrowded hospitals. Even with the lockdowns, we had critically ill people being treated on the floor. There's death counts and there were people who would have just died if they weren't put to sleep. The places that spent the least were likely the areas that didn't have old people or had a good density of health services to people. I'm surprised this isn't just a straightforward analogy; I thought everyone lost plenty of friends and family to COVID. Statista puts the death toll at 6.8 million even with the measures we had in place.
    - junofan 3y ago
      I’m talking spending as a %age of GDP. Those figures were all over the map. I think we should be cautious about perverse incentives in the future.

muzani 3y ago

It's imperceptible in the same way covid was. People spend billions of dollars on mitigating it. Some people spend their life efforts on it. The predictions would ideally fail, and that's because people take them seriously. It's fine for you to not take action, as long as someone does. Singapore props up the land around their area to prevent rising sea levels. Not everyone can do this. Indonesia chooses to migrate their capital city away from Jakarta. It affects some professions - fossil fuels companies will have to become energy companies. As long as the larger organizations consider it a priority, I think we'll be fine. But in many places, they do not, and that's where we have to take action. Like someone said on a meteor thread, if a meteor was going to hit Houston, most people will just ignore the warning.

junofan 3y ago
I dunno, the places that spent the least on COVID had the best outcomes. Seems the predictions might’ve just been wrong. We should be careful before spending $12 tn as we did with COVID.
- muzani 3y ago
  Correlation != causation. It's something we can figure out from calculations. The reason it was a crisis was because of overcrowded hospitals. Even with the lockdowns, we had critically ill people being treated on the floor. There's death counts and there were people who would have just died if they weren't put to sleep. The places that spent the least were likely the areas that didn't have old people or had a good density of health services to people. I'm surprised this isn't just a straightforward analogy; I thought everyone lost plenty of friends and family to COVID. Statista puts the death toll at 6.8 million even with the measures we had in place.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I’m talking spending as a %age of GDP. Those figures were all over the map. I think we should be cautious about perverse incentives in the future.