3 ms·
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 wo
by 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 agoI 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 agoCorrelation != 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 agoI’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.