| |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population that makes it impossible to discuss realistic solutions to problems that affect everyone. New Orleans is going to be underwater. That problem won't just affect poor people, it will affect everyone. So the first order of business is to encourage anyone who can do so to leave New Orleans to go somewhere that isn't underwater. That's the policy that's going to avoid the greatest amount of harm to the greatest number of people at the lowest cost. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What is there to discuss? If you have the ability to move away, then you move away, done. We aren't discussing this particular group because we're a too emotional to think straight. We're discussing this group because it's the one that will bear the brunt of the suffering and it's the one where there isn't an obvious "just let them figure it out and it'll be fine" solution. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You’re both undervaluing and overvaluing collective action at the same time. We know from experience with people in disaster-prone areas that the majority aren’t going to do that. They’re going to stay, and when the disaster comes, it will be a huge problem and they’ll demand the Army Corps of Engineers performs some miracle to help them. |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right? This kind of callousness is one of the biggest problem with the tech industry today. We learned to think in numbers, and some of us never learned to think about the people behind those numbers. Yes, there are some kinds of problem where you really have to think about the numbers, and not the people, because if you try to save everyone you will end up saving no one. This is not one of those. The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help. Tragically, given the state of America today, we aren't likely to help them. And many of them are likely to die, whether by drowning when the next Hurricane Katrina inundates New Orleans, or by slow starvation and disease when they and everyone else in their community and support network are left homeless. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help. This is exactly the problematic thinking I’m talking about. Your obsession with using society to help those whose problems are the most intractable leads you to conclude to majority should be left “to make their own choices.” But the most effective use of social action is helping the majority. They can benefit from social organization and their problems are tractable. Here, leaving the majority to its own devices is going to cause the most damage in the long run. Society should push them to make good choices and relocate in an orderly manner while there’s time. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I assure you, the proportion of New Orleans residents who would be able to leave now without financial hardship are not the majority. Even for reasonably-stable middle-class people, moving—especially out of a place like NOLA—is going to cause financial hardship. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We don't need them to "leave now." We don't need them to move to California. We need them to move to Baton Rogue over a period of decades. Under a high emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 6 feet by 2100. New Orleans is on average 1-2 feet below sea level (up to 10 feet). Baton Rouge is 60 feet above sea level. The average elevation of the state is 100 feet. In any given year, 15% of the population moves, and 40% of them move to a different county. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/why-people-mo.... It's insane to say that most people wouldn't be able to make a once-in-a-lifetime move just a couple of towns over sometime over the next few decades. | | |
| ▲ | selimthegrim 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Baton Rouge is partially on a bluff. But didn't you see the 7m map? The coastline will be lapping at St. George, southern EBR Parish along Burbank Road and the south part of LSU campus at that point. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | What’s the relevance of the 7m map? Are sea levels expected to rise much higher in the Gulf than the global average of 2m by 2100? |
|
| |
| ▲ | LargeWu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited. There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating. New Orleans will be the first, but not the last American city to collapse. Miami is probably next. Salt Lake City could very well run out of water, nevermind the increasingly toxic lakebed. Phoenix too. In the next hundred years people are going to learn why environmentalists use the word "sustainability" so much. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Global warming increases evaporation and consequently increase global rainfall. Although it is true that it can shift the location of rainy spots and dry spots, unless you have some magic way to predict the locations they will shift to, I'm going to assume Phoenix's access to water is going to increase because it seems extremely unlikely to me that the entire watershed of the Colorado River (encompassing most of the American part of the Rockies probably) will become dryer on average. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Nasrudith 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further. |
|
| |
| ▲ | human_person 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But that ignores the mass suffering that pushing people to move will prevent? It’s not
why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine It’s
Why aren’t you worried about everyone having their life destroyed, if we can encourage people to move it may be challenging for them but it will save their lives. |
|
