6 ms·

Why Climate Change Will Crush Civilization Like a Bug

26 points by markx2 3y ago

markx2 3y ago
alt : https://archive.ph/kfPAO https://archive.ph/kfPAO
anovikov 3y ago
[flagged]
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
- andyg_blog 3y ago
  What a black and white viewpoint to have, I feel bad for you. Should we also execute (on the spot, no less) jaywalkers, children with unlicensed lemonade stands, and people who ask for water cups but then get a fountain drink? Consider a little empathy once in a while. Do you think you might be willing to break a law of you were in fear for your life? Illegal immigration, like many "large-scale" issues in society, is a multifaceted social phenomenon that there is no silver bullet for, pun intended.
  - anovikov 3y ago
    Well, a secure border is what defines a country (or at least a country where it is by some weird quick unconstitutional to check papers within it, and anyone born inside is automatically a citizen). A country is a body of people that is able to pick who to include into the club and who not. If it is unable to, or refuses to do so and allows anyone to join, it ceases to exist.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Even in war-torn countries, most humans are uncomfortable with the bloody realities of actually killing - at scale, ongoing for years - desperate civilians. Especially since governments seem relatively poor at sorting out who's "illegal", and who's not. Then there are the physical realities - borders are not magical unbroken fences. Most (of the interesting ones, for migration) have huge quantities of legal people and goods moving across them. If the "migrants" are numerous, and there are plenty of "legals" who know how lucrative the people smuggling trade can be...
  - anovikov 3y ago
    Try breaking inside Russia. They have less than half the number of people and much longer border in much harder terrain. Chances of slipping in are around 10%, most of the time, you just get a bullet. They managed to keep it this way (ok maybe a bit less secure, but still mass infiltrations were impossible) even they they were literally a failed state in 1990s. So i don't agree this is somehow difficult. It's a matter of political will and people obeying the law. Just make what's already illegal, illegal indeed. Sorting who's illegal? Inside the country, sure, it's not obvious. But at the point of entry? Any crossing outside of the designated point of entry - you get a bullet, no questions asked. No one will check if you are a citizen or have a right to enter. Simply a sign "use of deadly force is authorised" and armed patrols 24/7 with enough ammo to stop even large infiltrations. At the point of entry? You gotta have a passport and a visa. No need for violence. You are just denied entry. Price of mistake is a bus ticket back. What's hard about it? As for refugees, sure this is a good concept but they should be by invitation only. You escape to whatever country you can escape, then prepare and file papers in the embassy and wait. If there is more perceived propaganda value ("North Korean official escaped Kim regime") or factual ("Russian submarine designer with a suitcase of blueprints") of inviting you than perceived costs of threat, sure welcome, otherwise, why? Refugee status (just as ANY immigration) exists for the benefit of accepting country. Not for the benefit of the refugee or immigrant themselves.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JackMorgan 3y ago
  This will be your opinion right up to the second your own life or family is the one in danger and you need to break a law or cross a border to save it. So this comment only indicates a complete lack of empathy. A drowning person is extremely dangerous because the animal instinct in them will cause them to push a rescuer underwater so the victim can climb on top. We don't blame the drowning person, we know that humans will do terrible things when they're in mortal danger. So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution can find a way to incorporate all the people who will need a new place to stay, making them productive citizens. Instead of destroying their land and then machine gunning them at the border.
  - cbcixocjabsjcnc 3y ago
    > So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution This cuts both ways. Without all the civilization and tech brought by the rich countries Central America (or Africa, etc) would not be able to reproduce at the problematic rates they are today. If that is also the rich countries responsibility we should be immediately cutting off all aid or enforcing birth limits. We also need that in our own countries, but our naturally dwindling birth rates seem to have that covered for now. We should codify sustainable reproduction rates.
  - anovikov 3y ago
    Well, people will be forced to save themselves. Other people will be forced to defend. What's weird about it? It doesn't have to be personal. It can be electric fence. Mines. Whatever.
blamestross 3y ago
There's a peer comment that exemplifies the problem that scares me most. (Edit: Oh good, it got flagged into oblivion, basically it was advocating for killing illegal immigrants) In the US, basically all of Central American is coming to live here in the coming decades. If we don't find a way to invite and welcome them, our society is going to break down. Conservatives are freaking out about "invasions over the southern border" and advocating killing people. This is just the start. This is the trickle. No amount of "border security" will stop people fleeing for their lives en-mass. The US just isn't culturally prepared for this and I don't know how we can change it.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Not culturally prepared for putting newcomers into low wage-low status jobs? West Side Story was 1961: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSKk-cvblc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSKk-cvblc Here you are free and you have pride Long as you stay on your own side Free to be anything you choose Free to wait tables and shine shoes compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#%22No_Irish_need_apply%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#%22No_Iri...
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    The U.S. of 1961 had millions of low-education/low-wage jobs. And loads of cheap housing. And both of those were seen as growth sectors. Vs. the U.S. of 2024? Far closer to "None of the above".
    - MattGaiser 3y ago
      US continues to have lots of both, except that the major cities have grown to the point that some areas are not cheap. But there is a lot more to the USA than New York and San Francisco. Consider places like Madison. Unemployment is 2%, and houses are around 300-400K. Or Fargo, unemployment of 2.4% and houses around 250K.
    - 082349872349872 3y ago
      It's been a long time since I've been in the Old Country. I'd believe live-in help is long gone, but have you all truly lost all the car washes, restaurant kitchens (and waitstaff), gardening and janitorial services, day labour walls, valet parking, etc.? (as to cheap housing, note that the 1961 lyrics include "12 in a room in America")
JackMorgan 3y ago
So what's a person like us to do? It sounds increasingly like "wait for the end". This guy is talking about power lines melting due to heat. And land that gets so much rain, heat, dry, and frost no crops can survive a growing season. I have time and resources but no idea even where to put them. I can't imagine even building an indoor garden will work in that kind of environment, neighbors will just come take whatever you have. There's too many of us, too much instability. Seriously if anyone knows how I can help, please let me know. When my local community started suffering from lack of fire fighters I joined up. When ambulances got more scarce, I signed up and am becoming an EMT. I already don't drive and eat vegetarian, and barely consume anything. What's level 2 look like for this? I won't accept "watch the world die", so how can I help?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  https://drawdown.org/get-involved https://drawdown.org/get-involved It states up front that the actions of an individual are basically meaningless in a global system but then lists things that you can do that will make a difference if enough people do them.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I'm afraid the answer is ugly. The problem is American politics. Dealing with climate change is hard, but it's the Americans making it impossible. We are among the most prolific producers, both individually and in aggregate, and we're the only ones widely denying that the problem even exists. The rest of the world is reluctant to make (and stick to) a deal without American help. The thing with climate change deniers is that they're not just wrong on climate change. Climate change denial is a conspiracy theory, and people who believe one conspiracy theory are often open to more. The US is intermittently run by conspiracy theorists, doing all kinds of harm. That's the thing you can affect. You make it clear that you will not tolerate conspiracy theories. You tell people, "Voting is not just one day every few years. It has consequences that affect me, personally. We cannot be friends if you are going to make choices that hurt me. The time has past where we can just 'agree to disagree'." You cannot do anything about this problem on your own. It must be a group effort. Solving it yourself would be like trying to contribute your part to solving traffic by building a few feet of your own road. Like I said, this is ugly. Our friendship is the only real lever we have on how people act. People are going to tell me that we shouldn't let politics pick our personal lives, and that my approach here will just increase divisiveness. But I think divisiveness is already far past a tolerable level and extreme actions are required. So... feel free to ignore me. But I think this needed to be said.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
> And third, I want to repeat what I said in my last article: Climate activism is not a waste of time. I'm getting mixed signals here. They seem to be tottering on the edge of the new climate denial themselves. Yes nobody "serious" just flat out denies climate change anymore but one of the layers of defense is exactly this article. Governments are only pretending. It's all hopeless, etc. You might think you're being cool and edgy but if you're aware that what you say needs a disclaimer about not giving up on climate activism, maybe deep down you know you're effectively a tool of the fossil fuel complex? edit to add: > First of all all, our civilization is completely dependent on fossil fuels. If we stopped using them all of a sudden, people would riot and civilization would collapse, anyway. We need fossil fuels for supply chains, for growing food, and for about 90% of industrially manufactured products "Need" is doing a lot of work here. We use them because our society doesn't price in the externalities. It's like saying we "need" to dump paint and dye in a river. Also, no one is talking about stopping cold turkey, but if you don't believe there is an alternative then I guess that's your only option. This reinforces my view that this is just someone, probably well meaning, that has absorbed too much fossil fuel propaganda at face value, and so sees no future without fossil fuels.
lupire 3y ago
Title violates HN guidelines. Crush like a bug? Like cockroaches, who survive nuclear war?
- latexr 3y ago
  Are you under the impression that being resilient to radiation somehow makes you immune to being stepped on with great force? Cockroaches aren’t even particularly impressive in that regard, despite the popular myth. https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/02/23/1567313.htm https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/02/23/1567313.h... https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-really-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-re...
- markx2 3y ago
  Curious - how does it violate? The post title is the title of the actual article. Had I changed it, then yep, wrong. But I did not. Please explain so I do not do this again?
pengaru 3y ago
This shouldn't be flagged you clowns.
- dang 3y ago
  At a minimum, the title was way too linkbaity for HN, which means it broke the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1letterunixname 3y ago
A bit sensational, but adaptation and mitigation practices are necessary. - Greatly increased drinking water storage capacity. - Significantly more storm drainage and storm surge protection. - More organized mass evacuation plans and more robust shelters for stronger storms. - Build new structures partially underground for wind and forest fire resistance. - Don't rebuild in high risk areas. - Insurance and government compensation should cover homes leaning into the ocean or built on unstable hillsides. - CCS using carbonates and oceanic biomass, investing up to $20 trillion USD. - Expanded use of greenhouses and indoor factory farming. - Beyond net zero, get to net negative. - Desalination expansion in areas with water scarcity, including long distance water transfer to drying areas such as Arizona. Since the scientific models have been too conservative, it's prudent to plan for the possibilities of storms approaching the strength and size of a hypothetical hypercane.

26 points by markx2 3y ago

markx2 3y ago

alt : https://archive.ph/kfPAO https://archive.ph/kfPAO

anovikov 3y ago

[flagged]

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
andyg_blog 3y ago
What a black and white viewpoint to have, I feel bad for you. Should we also execute (on the spot, no less) jaywalkers, children with unlicensed lemonade stands, and people who ask for water cups but then get a fountain drink? Consider a little empathy once in a while. Do you think you might be willing to break a law of you were in fear for your life? Illegal immigration, like many "large-scale" issues in society, is a multifaceted social phenomenon that there is no silver bullet for, pun intended.
- anovikov 3y ago
  Well, a secure border is what defines a country (or at least a country where it is by some weird quick unconstitutional to check papers within it, and anyone born inside is automatically a citizen). A country is a body of people that is able to pick who to include into the club and who not. If it is unable to, or refuses to do so and allows anyone to join, it ceases to exist.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 3y ago
Even in war-torn countries, most humans are uncomfortable with the bloody realities of actually killing - at scale, ongoing for years - desperate civilians. Especially since governments seem relatively poor at sorting out who's "illegal", and who's not. Then there are the physical realities - borders are not magical unbroken fences. Most (of the interesting ones, for migration) have huge quantities of legal people and goods moving across them. If the "migrants" are numerous, and there are plenty of "legals" who know how lucrative the people smuggling trade can be...
- anovikov 3y ago
  Try breaking inside Russia. They have less than half the number of people and much longer border in much harder terrain. Chances of slipping in are around 10%, most of the time, you just get a bullet. They managed to keep it this way (ok maybe a bit less secure, but still mass infiltrations were impossible) even they they were literally a failed state in 1990s. So i don't agree this is somehow difficult. It's a matter of political will and people obeying the law. Just make what's already illegal, illegal indeed. Sorting who's illegal? Inside the country, sure, it's not obvious. But at the point of entry? Any crossing outside of the designated point of entry - you get a bullet, no questions asked. No one will check if you are a citizen or have a right to enter. Simply a sign "use of deadly force is authorised" and armed patrols 24/7 with enough ammo to stop even large infiltrations. At the point of entry? You gotta have a passport and a visa. No need for violence. You are just denied entry. Price of mistake is a bus ticket back. What's hard about it? As for refugees, sure this is a good concept but they should be by invitation only. You escape to whatever country you can escape, then prepare and file papers in the embassy and wait. If there is more perceived propaganda value ("North Korean official escaped Kim regime") or factual ("Russian submarine designer with a suitcase of blueprints") of inviting you than perceived costs of threat, sure welcome, otherwise, why? Refugee status (just as ANY immigration) exists for the benefit of accepting country. Not for the benefit of the refugee or immigrant themselves.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JackMorgan 3y ago
This will be your opinion right up to the second your own life or family is the one in danger and you need to break a law or cross a border to save it. So this comment only indicates a complete lack of empathy. A drowning person is extremely dangerous because the animal instinct in them will cause them to push a rescuer underwater so the victim can climb on top. We don't blame the drowning person, we know that humans will do terrible things when they're in mortal danger. So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution can find a way to incorporate all the people who will need a new place to stay, making them productive citizens. Instead of destroying their land and then machine gunning them at the border.
- cbcixocjabsjcnc 3y ago
  > So perhaps the rich countries that caused much of this pollution This cuts both ways. Without all the civilization and tech brought by the rich countries Central America (or Africa, etc) would not be able to reproduce at the problematic rates they are today. If that is also the rich countries responsibility we should be immediately cutting off all aid or enforcing birth limits. We also need that in our own countries, but our naturally dwindling birth rates seem to have that covered for now. We should codify sustainable reproduction rates.
- anovikov 3y ago
  Well, people will be forced to save themselves. Other people will be forced to defend. What's weird about it? It doesn't have to be personal. It can be electric fence. Mines. Whatever.

blamestross 3y ago

There's a peer comment that exemplifies the problem that scares me most. (Edit: Oh good, it got flagged into oblivion, basically it was advocating for killing illegal immigrants) In the US, basically all of Central American is coming to live here in the coming decades. If we don't find a way to invite and welcome them, our society is going to break down. Conservatives are freaking out about "invasions over the southern border" and advocating killing people. This is just the start. This is the trickle. No amount of "border security" will stop people fleeing for their lives en-mass. The US just isn't culturally prepared for this and I don't know how we can change it.

082349872349872 3y ago
Not culturally prepared for putting newcomers into low wage-low status jobs? West Side Story was 1961: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSKk-cvblc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSKk-cvblc Here you are free and you have pride Long as you stay on your own side Free to be anything you choose Free to wait tables and shine shoes compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#%22No_Irish_need_apply%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#%22No_Iri...
- bell-cot 3y ago
  The U.S. of 1961 had millions of low-education/low-wage jobs. And loads of cheap housing. And both of those were seen as growth sectors. Vs. the U.S. of 2024? Far closer to "None of the above".
  - MattGaiser 3y ago
    US continues to have lots of both, except that the major cities have grown to the point that some areas are not cheap. But there is a lot more to the USA than New York and San Francisco. Consider places like Madison. Unemployment is 2%, and houses are around 300-400K. Or Fargo, unemployment of 2.4% and houses around 250K.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    It's been a long time since I've been in the Old Country. I'd believe live-in help is long gone, but have you all truly lost all the car washes, restaurant kitchens (and waitstaff), gardening and janitorial services, day labour walls, valet parking, etc.? (as to cheap housing, note that the 1961 lyrics include "12 in a room in America")

JackMorgan 3y ago

So what's a person like us to do? It sounds increasingly like "wait for the end". This guy is talking about power lines melting due to heat. And land that gets so much rain, heat, dry, and frost no crops can survive a growing season. I have time and resources but no idea even where to put them. I can't imagine even building an indoor garden will work in that kind of environment, neighbors will just come take whatever you have. There's too many of us, too much instability. Seriously if anyone knows how I can help, please let me know. When my local community started suffering from lack of fire fighters I joined up. When ambulances got more scarce, I signed up and am becoming an EMT. I already don't drive and eat vegetarian, and barely consume anything. What's level 2 look like for this? I won't accept "watch the world die", so how can I help?

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
https://drawdown.org/get-involved https://drawdown.org/get-involved It states up front that the actions of an individual are basically meaningless in a global system but then lists things that you can do that will make a difference if enough people do them.
jfengel 3y ago
I'm afraid the answer is ugly. The problem is American politics. Dealing with climate change is hard, but it's the Americans making it impossible. We are among the most prolific producers, both individually and in aggregate, and we're the only ones widely denying that the problem even exists. The rest of the world is reluctant to make (and stick to) a deal without American help. The thing with climate change deniers is that they're not just wrong on climate change. Climate change denial is a conspiracy theory, and people who believe one conspiracy theory are often open to more. The US is intermittently run by conspiracy theorists, doing all kinds of harm. That's the thing you can affect. You make it clear that you will not tolerate conspiracy theories. You tell people, "Voting is not just one day every few years. It has consequences that affect me, personally. We cannot be friends if you are going to make choices that hurt me. The time has past where we can just 'agree to disagree'." You cannot do anything about this problem on your own. It must be a group effort. Solving it yourself would be like trying to contribute your part to solving traffic by building a few feet of your own road. Like I said, this is ugly. Our friendship is the only real lever we have on how people act. People are going to tell me that we shouldn't let politics pick our personal lives, and that my approach here will just increase divisiveness. But I think divisiveness is already far past a tolerable level and extreme actions are required. So... feel free to ignore me. But I think this needed to be said.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

> And third, I want to repeat what I said in my last article: Climate activism is not a waste of time. I'm getting mixed signals here. They seem to be tottering on the edge of the new climate denial themselves. Yes nobody "serious" just flat out denies climate change anymore but one of the layers of defense is exactly this article. Governments are only pretending. It's all hopeless, etc. You might think you're being cool and edgy but if you're aware that what you say needs a disclaimer about not giving up on climate activism, maybe deep down you know you're effectively a tool of the fossil fuel complex? edit to add: > First of all all, our civilization is completely dependent on fossil fuels. If we stopped using them all of a sudden, people would riot and civilization would collapse, anyway. We need fossil fuels for supply chains, for growing food, and for about 90% of industrially manufactured products "Need" is doing a lot of work here. We use them because our society doesn't price in the externalities. It's like saying we "need" to dump paint and dye in a river. Also, no one is talking about stopping cold turkey, but if you don't believe there is an alternative then I guess that's your only option. This reinforces my view that this is just someone, probably well meaning, that has absorbed too much fossil fuel propaganda at face value, and so sees no future without fossil fuels.

lupire 3y ago

Title violates HN guidelines. Crush like a bug? Like cockroaches, who survive nuclear war?

latexr 3y ago
Are you under the impression that being resilient to radiation somehow makes you immune to being stepped on with great force? Cockroaches aren’t even particularly impressive in that regard, despite the popular myth. https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/02/23/1567313.htm https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/02/23/1567313.h... https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-really-survive-a-nuclear-apocalypse https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/would-cockroaches-re...
markx2 3y ago
Curious - how does it violate? The post title is the title of the actual article. Had I changed it, then yep, wrong. But I did not. Please explain so I do not do this again?

pengaru 3y ago

This shouldn't be flagged you clowns.

dang 3y ago
At a minimum, the title was way too linkbaity for HN, which means it broke the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

1letterunixname 3y ago

A bit sensational, but adaptation and mitigation practices are necessary. - Greatly increased drinking water storage capacity. - Significantly more storm drainage and storm surge protection. - More organized mass evacuation plans and more robust shelters for stronger storms. - Build new structures partially underground for wind and forest fire resistance. - Don't rebuild in high risk areas. - Insurance and government compensation should cover homes leaning into the ocean or built on unstable hillsides. - CCS using carbonates and oceanic biomass, investing up to $20 trillion USD. - Expanded use of greenhouses and indoor factory farming. - Beyond net zero, get to net negative. - Desalination expansion in areas with water scarcity, including long distance water transfer to drying areas such as Arizona. Since the scientific models have been too conservative, it's prudent to plan for the possibilities of storms approaching the strength and size of a hypothetical hypercane.