5 ms·

> rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped Then it’s not a coast, it’s underwater. The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. Peop

> rising to the point where the coasts of continents are swamped Then it’s not a coast, it’s underwater. The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Also worth noting the sea level is actually falling relative to land level in many areas, especially towards the poles. What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles.

lapcat 3y ago
> The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. > People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Oh yeah, no problem. Please tell the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that it's totally fine. > What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles. Because the land and infrastructure there is surely fantastic. I suppose those people don't need, you know, food or water, for example? But ignoring the geological and ecological problems for the moment, consider the political problems. We're already driving ourselves crazy over a relatively small amount of immigration, and you're saying it's fine that a billion or two people are going to move—or at least try to move—into different countries? I'm guessing they won't be welcomed with open arms.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  > Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. The political problems will sort themselves out (literally people problems), and the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the changing demographics. People move, people build. This is basic stuff.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. People who lives on the coasts don't have to move every second of every day, month, year, etc., due to the coasts moving. In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. > literally people problems Climate change is a people problem. As George Carlin joked, "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!" > This is basic stuff. No, your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      > In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance. > your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory. Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard". When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed. It's a very conservative view that strangely seems to be held only by liberals: "the way things were is the best way they can possibly be, all this change is no good, we have to go back to the good old days!". With of course nothing real to justify it. You inverted Chronological Snobbery, but it's still just as much as fallacy.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance. No, I'm not misinformed. A good friend of mine was misplaced by Hurricane Katrina—though the problem was that he lost his job as a result of the hurricane rather than losing his home. But it's not actually very common. Places with hurricanes include, for example, a very large part of the United States, almost the entire area along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Now tell me how many tens of millions of people have moved out of the area entirely due to hurricanes. The population of the areas threatened by hurricanes is still massive. (It should be noted that after a temporary drop, the population of New Orleans has bounced back to previous levels now after Katrina.) > Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard". You're completely ignoring the scale of the problem. When you talk about "humans", without a number, it's a misleading way of putting it. Again, several billion people on Earth are living in the danger zone. This is a much larger problem than any immigration or refugee crisis that currently exists or has ever existed. > When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed. Actually, no, if we were willing to put in the hard work, then we could have avoided global warming catastophe altogether. Instead, we largely ignored the problem and did nothing to stop it.
        3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> The coast has moved. That’s fine, they always do. Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. > People will need to move to accommodate that. That’s also fine, they always do. Oh yeah, no problem. Please tell the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that it's totally fine. > What we’re most likely to see is mass migration into previously frozen/underwater areas towards the poles. Because the land and infrastructure there is surely fantastic. I suppose those people don't need, you know, food or water, for example? But ignoring the geological and ecological problems for the moment, consider the political problems. We're already driving ourselves crazy over a relatively small amount of immigration, and you're saying it's fine that a billion or two people are going to move—or at least try to move—into different countries? I'm guessing they won't be welcomed with open arms.

basil-rash 3y ago
> Define "always", relative to, say, recorded human history. Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. The political problems will sort themselves out (literally people problems), and the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the changing demographics. People move, people build. This is basic stuff.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Every second of every day, month, year, etc. they are constantly shifting. People who lives on the coasts don't have to move every second of every day, month, year, etc., due to the coasts moving. In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. > literally people problems Climate change is a people problem. As George Carlin joked, "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked!" > This is basic stuff. No, your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    > In fact, the people almost never have to move due to the coasts moving. You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance. > your comments are oversimplistic and perfunctory. Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard". When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed. It's a very conservative view that strangely seems to be held only by liberals: "the way things were is the best way they can possibly be, all this change is no good, we have to go back to the good old days!". With of course nothing real to justify it. You inverted Chronological Snobbery, but it's still just as much as fallacy.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > You're misinformed. It's very common in places with hurricanes, for instance. No, I'm not misinformed. A good friend of mine was misplaced by Hurricane Katrina—though the problem was that he lost his job as a result of the hurricane rather than losing his home. But it's not actually very common. Places with hurricanes include, for example, a very large part of the United States, almost the entire area along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Now tell me how many tens of millions of people have moved out of the area entirely due to hurricanes. The population of the areas threatened by hurricanes is still massive. (It should be noted that after a temporary drop, the population of New Orleans has bounced back to previous levels now after Katrina.) > Your entire argument is based on the idea that humans can't move and build, or at least that doing so is "hard". You're completely ignoring the scale of the problem. When you talk about "humans", without a number, it's a misleading way of putting it. Again, several billion people on Earth are living in the danger zone. This is a much larger problem than any immigration or refugee crisis that currently exists or has ever existed. > When in fact putting in the hard work to move and build has been the cornerstone of human civilization for as long as human civilization has existed. Actually, no, if we were willing to put in the hard work, then we could have avoided global warming catastophe altogether. Instead, we largely ignored the problem and did nothing to stop it.
      - 3y ago