this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)
News
76 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hopefully this is the monetary incentive required not to build in stupid places with lax regulations ... but i doubt it.
That's fine, but what happens when this expands with the the increasing effects of climate change? What happens when Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas health insurance costs triple because of the risks of extreme heat? What about New Orleans or locations prone to extreme storms or hurricanes?
Huge patches of countries all over the world are soon to become uninsurable because climate change makes it too dangerous to live there.
Yup. People gonna have to move.
Remember when people said that climate change would cost us trillions of dollars? This is why.
And it's gonna suck for most of us in a lot of ways. Like I moved up north partially because of politics back in 2014. Now some are eventually gonna follow and move up here as well. Plus, I can't afford a house. A lot of people can't afford one. But when more and more people come, we won't have enough. Unless we see some real, meaningful changes in the way we handle housing, it's gonna be a shit show.
I was talking to my mom back in I think 2020 and the subject of the cost of a home came up. I told her how much they are here, and she said me and my boyfriend should move near her and some other family in St Louis. While I would love to be near family, I'm gay. I'm not moving to a red state. And I'm not looking to buy a house I will eventually need to abandon with no one buying it. That's a lot of money to just lose.
A house is worth peanuts without water, this should be priority number one when purchasing a house. We should avoid cities and move closer to mountains where the rain will provide enough stream.
Plenty of cities have good access to water. It's why most of them were built where they were in the first place. And for the most part, it's the way you have the least impact on the environment.
That's the way it used to be.
Take the Rio Grande:
Cities will become traps. It was convenient before but now it is becoming a death trap, don't purchase a house there, you become dependent on someone bringing food and water to you. If you are in the business of searching for a house, avoid cities.
You're cherry picking your examples. Most cities still do have great access to water. And that "dependence" is called civilization. Everyone has their own jobs to do so that we're not all each our own homestead living off grid. It's more efficient and resilient that way.
Thanks for the downvote, that was a pleasure to find examples and sources for you.
You listed the same example several times, in quotes, not sourced links, and you're also fear mongering on the level of a conspiracy theorist with no reason for why this would affect cities in the northeast, for instance. Your advice of moving to the mountains, taken en masse, would just result in cities existing there...with the same source of water.
I see that you also downvoted my post about veganism and the cost of breeding cattle in term of water. I see a pattern there.
What are you talking about? It's the same article about the rio grande. It's not supposed to be multiple examples.
Paste it in any search engine, it's the first result.
I see your true colors now.
Ridiculous, I'm not talking to the masses.
You brought nothing to the table, you saw a post about veganism and then you went full conspiracy theorist mode. Instead of discussing the case you just went for the downvote button. I'm not wasting more time with you.
We're really gonna need to colonize another planet eventually.
It'd be easier & cheaper to fix this one.
We're going to have to break a few eggs though, since we waited so long.
By eggs I mean multinational corporations.
Some scientists theorize we've already passed the red line. The rest is just crowd control. Those eggs are gonna be broken but they're probably gonna be a few billion people. Best to plan for the worst, hope for the best and doing both climate science and technical advances towards colonization.
It's not like the research and funding needs to go to one or the other. Never understood that argument, like what 10,000s of astrophysicists and engineers are just gonna be like "yeah let's all stop or research today to save humanity" lmao.
Colonizing other planets is not a solution. It is vastly harder to terraform Mars than to repair the damage we've done to Earth. Multiple technological Holy Grails must be discovered in order to make it even remotely possible. Not happening.
A colony established on Mars with current technology would be completely dependent on Earth for food and other supplies.
If we've passed the red line already, then it's all over and we may as well live it up while we still can.
I didn't say terraform.
I hope the broken eggs are billionaires' nuts.
"If I had a gun, with two bullets, and I was in a room with Automobile, Aviation and Advertisement, I would shoot Advertisement twice."
Really? Automobile is plenty deserving, and shooting it means people have better options than flying for a lot of trips.