|
So has anyone else been harassing their elected officials into preparing their districts or regions for this? It's getting easier and easier for me to walk people through the arctic meltrate wobbly jetstream, slowing AMOC, and future consequences, but I'm fairly certain that most of my leverage comes from Michigan being ever so slightly less hosed than everywhere else.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
I moved to Seattle not long ago from Vegas. I know Vegas will just keep getting hotter as time goes on and there were way too many 118-120 degree days, but how does Seattle do in the medium term?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Seattle is overdue for a bad earthquake. Land west of I-5 has been written off by the authorities. There are high and low parts in the area, and land may drop several feet if a big quake occurs. Boeing Field is at about 12ft above sea level for reference. As sea level rises, so do the pressures on the fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend any good fiction that depicts somewhat plausible views of the future w/r/t climate change? I know Paolo Bacigalupi's work is pretty good at it. The Windup Girl is a bit extreme but the Water Knife and his Drowned Cities younger adult fiction stuff is pretty good at depicting an America 50-100 years into the future. jeeves fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
The whole part in Blade Runner 2049 where K goes to the junkyard (minus the flying car).
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Do you think flooded city tourism will be a thing in the future like war tourism is a thing today? Like people just traveling to some partially submerged city to take selfies. EDIT: I guess there's already ol' Zuck doing the VR survey of Puerto Rico, observing the misery of others in real time from the safety of his office or whatever. Gortarius fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Kim Stanley Robinson's "Forty signs of rain" comes to mind
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Ok, it's probably time to address my main bugaboo (I might have already done this several times already but whatever). What exactly is going to be the landscape 20-30 years from now? Is there going to be a full civilizational collapse? Is every nation going to become fascist? Which nation's in Europe are going to be relatively safe (specifically Portugal, Netherlabds, Germany and Norway?) This issue is legitimate ly making me think there is no point to the future and I'd rather die than spend my days digging dirt to farm and talking about nothing BUT farming or the weather or whatever people talk about without communication, books or the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Ok, it's probably time to address my main bugaboo (I might have already done this several times already but whatever). What exactly is going to be the landscape 20-30 years from now? Is there going to be a full civilizational collapse? Is every nation going to become fascist? Which nation's in Europe are going to be relatively safe (specifically Portugal, Netherlabds, Germany and Norway?) This issue is legitimate ly making me think there is no point to the future and I'd rather die than spend my days digging dirt to farm and talking about nothing BUT farming or the weather or whatever people talk about without communication, books or the Internet. Start doing some hobby farming now, build up a nice library, and find like-minded people to hang out with, you worry about this too much to be online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Ok, it's probably time to address my main bugaboo (I might have already done this several times already but whatever). What exactly is going to be the landscape 20-30 years from now? Is there going to be a full civilizational collapse? Is every nation going to become fascist? Which nation's in Europe are going to be relatively safe (specifically Portugal, Netherlabds, Germany and Norway?) This issue is legitimate ly making me think there is no point to the future and I'd rather die than spend my days digging dirt to farm and talking about nothing BUT farming or the weather or whatever people talk about without communication, books or the Internet. No, global society isn't going to collapse. Northern Europe will do relatively better than Southern Europe. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap23_FINAL.pdf tldr:
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Can anyone recommend any good fiction that depicts somewhat plausible views of the future w/r/t climate change? Fist of the North Star
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Can anyone recommend any good fiction that depicts somewhat plausible views of the future w/r/t climate change? IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Can anyone recommend any good fiction that depicts somewhat plausible views of the future w/r/t climate change? Watch this video that really sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxMMElT61A8
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Ok, it's probably time to address my main bugaboo (I might have already done this several times already but whatever). What exactly is going to be the landscape 20-30 years from now? Is there going to be a full civilizational collapse? Is every nation going to become fascist? Which nation's in Europe are going to be relatively safe (specifically Portugal, Netherlabds, Germany and Norway?) This issue is legitimate ly making me think there is no point to the future and I'd rather die than spend my days digging dirt to farm and talking about nothing BUT farming or the weather or whatever people talk about without communication, books or the Internet. My dude you've shown up to this thread a few times and don't seem to have picked up that nobody can predict the future beyond the fact that you will continue to obsess over your individual meaninglessness rather than build genuine meaning in your own daily life. Climate change is a significant pressure on western civilization over a century or more timescale, but the rise of individually-tailored infowar, economic collapse, and resource exhaustion are likely to be much more pressing concerns in the immediate future. You could just as easily haunt doomsday economics or the trump thread, but here's a secret: some day in the future a gamma ray burst from a distant supernova is going to sterilize this solar system and extinct whatever intelligent life happens to be around. It might be in 500k years or it might be tomorrow. Detach yourself from the cult of progress and adopt an ethos that lets you find some measure of joy in the astonishingly short period that you and all other humans will exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Eh, global society is definitely going to come apart imo. The resentment over climate change and who is responsible + the reaction to migration is gonna be too much for most places to handle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Detach yourself from the cult of progress and adopt an ethos that lets you find some measure of joy in the astonishingly short period that you and all other humans will exist. Otherwise there's always full on nihilism, but your version sounds better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Eh, global society is definitely going to come apart imo. The resentment over climate change and who is responsible + the reaction to migration is gonna be too much for most places to handle. I very much doubt that, especially considering the timescale given (20-30 years). Global freedom of movement never existed for most humans and won't in the near future and the refugee situation will become exponentially worse. But it will still make sense to import/export and the global interconnected economy will keep being utilized by those who have any resources to do so. Instead, consider the incredible opportunities for corporations to sell machinery for mass production indoor aquaculture or desalination plants across the globe or the opportunity to exploit migrants and desperate people in collapsing countries. The potentials for profit are huge! Global society will keep existing, it just will be starker and crueler. What could stop that? Only some sort of global regime to mitigate and adapt to climate change, but that itself would be an extant global society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I very much doubt that, especially considering the timescale given (20-30 years). Global freedom of movement never existed for most humans and won't in the near future and the refugee situation will become exponentially worse. But it will still make sense to import/export and the global interconnected economy will keep being utilized by those who have any resources to do so. Ports becoming inaccessible as sea level rise takes off. Probably more like 30-40 years for that but I don't think a growth based economy will still function when everyone is busy writing off all the coastal development of the past 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Ports becoming inaccessible as sea level rise takes off. Probably more like 30-40 years for that but I don't think a growth based economy will still function when everyone is busy writing off all the coastal development of the past 1000 years. exacerbated by focusing domestic resources on a hilariously vain attempt to mitigate/save said development instead of cutting and running not that the latter is like snapping your fingers poof it's taken care of, but people are incredibly short-sighted
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Ports becoming inaccessible as sea level rise takes off. Probably more like 30-40 years for that but I don't think a growth based economy will still function when everyone is busy writing off all the coastal development of the past 1000 years. If the Netherlands is any indication smart countries will spend money to stave off that downwriting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Ports becoming inaccessible as sea level rise takes off. Probably more like 30-40 years for that but I don't think a growth based economy will still function when everyone is busy writing off all the coastal development of the past 1000 years. Why would everyone give up on global trade instead of rebuilding the ports (maybe even using unethically cheap migrant labor)? Like I get your point that there will be massive costs, but I'm seeing a world that will be ready and eager to do whatever is needed to maintain the standards of the global elite, and that includes international shipping, global communications, etc. So take the Port of LA for example (pdf warning), they're planning to just keep raising the height of the port when they do periodic major maintenance. The port will be fine, they'll find the money to raise it. The surrounding low income communities? They'll be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why would everyone give up on global trade instead of rebuilding the ports (maybe even using unethically cheap migrant labor)? I just, idk, don't see the elites achieving escape velocity from the rest of the economy? Figure pretty much every low-income community and most of the medium income ones within distance of the coasts/rivers are hosed over time, what does that do to global trade, and then where do those people go or try to go? imo it's either states turn inward and go reductionist or turn outward in a nationalistic free-for-all over the resources needed to maintain growth in their individual economies. Plus it's less about labor and more about increasing difficulty of engineering work and decreasing access to the materials needed, not all ports will keep ahead of the game and as more drop out, the network gets weaker and trends towards dissolution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Figure pretty much every low-income community and most of the medium income ones within distance of the coasts/rivers are hosed over time, But it isn't like climate change will leave NYC or Hong Kong underwater, even if we did nothing. But we will spend a lot of money to help the places where wealth and capital have accrued. quote:what does that do to global trade, and then where do those people go or try to go? imo it's either states turn inward and go reductionist or turn outward in a nationalistic free-for-all over the resources needed to maintain growth in their individual economies. That's a false dichotomy, in the face of migration issues the options aren't between "shut down all trade" and "go to war for growth." We can see brutal and inhumane treatment of migrants all while we keep shipping iron or washing machines or whatever around the globe. quote:Plus it's less about labor and more about increasing difficulty of engineering work and decreasing access to the materials needed, not all ports will keep ahead of the game and as more drop out, the network gets weaker and trends towards dissolution. I think this is based on an unproven premise, that there will be absolute resource scarcity rather than acute resource scarcity. Climate change will cause shortages of some goods, but many things, especially raw materials will have their supply unaffected by climate change. Even in the resources most impacted by climate change, like water and food, the shortages will be regionalized or localized rather than global. So we may live in a world without salmon and where billions starve or die of thirst, but there will still be iron ore and gravel and the rich will still feast like kings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Good article on the straw ban. They're a minuscule percentage of ocean plastic and the whole thing is a meaningless feel-good measure. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...tm_content=view
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
No problem can be solved incrementally, after all Wait, what i meant was, Any comparatively small change can be totally ignored as insignificant Eddy-Baby fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's a very inaccurate view of climate change impacts. Only the communities on coastal lowlands or in some river basins are at such risk from sea level rise or climate change related flooding. There will be mass displacement and there will certainly be regional collapse, but the world is a big place and it is hard for the poorest and most desperate of people to move the farthest. quote:That's a false dichotomy, in the face of migration issues the options aren't between "shut down all trade" and "go to war for growth." We can see brutal and inhumane treatment of migrants all while we keep shipping iron or washing machines or whatever around the globe. I think of it along the lines of internal migration as well as international, that the costs of saving the rich playgrounds and resettling refugees from the low-lying areas to other parts of a country, the costs of maintaining infrastructure going up, and the effect on crops in most countries (barring Canada and Russia) will bring most economies into a place where they regularly experience negative growth. You seem insistent that our current economic model will remain stable as it ratchets ever tighter, I don't see how it can do so without some form of intervention to assure growth continues. Yeah, the rich people want trade, but do they get it? If the future is actual neo-feudalism and serfs can just be executed, my expectations of unrest are off, but we're not quite there yet. quote:I think this is based on an unproven premise, that there will be absolute resource scarcity rather than acute resource scarcity. Climate change will cause shortages of some goods, but many things, especially raw materials will have their supply unaffected by climate change. Even in the resources most impacted by climate change, like water and food, the shortages will be regionalized or localized rather than global. I do tend to lump resource depletion in with climate change just because it's all we're dealing with this century, the limiting factor in this case being sand. Obviously large powerful countries will keep their ports maintained the longest, but smaller less diversified economies that have to import building materials will fall behind, dragging their regional economies down and feeding back into the downward trade spiral. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Right, coastal lowlands and river basins are where people tend to build cities for some reason. NYC and Hong Kong don't have to be under sea level to be lost; fighting a war of attrition against flooding with huge amounts of additional concrete and pumping will be massive drags on those economies, and people will lose that battle over time. A Megalopolis that floods even twice a year isn't livable. this is also already happening here in NYC. the subway system is actively crumbling and once it reaches a certain point of decay so goes the city as a whole
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Plus it's less about labor and more about increasing difficulty of engineering work and decreasing access to the materials needed, not all ports will keep ahead of the game and as more drop out, the network gets weaker and trends towards dissolution. As we continue to move into insane post-panamax shipping, the number of ports shippers will be willing to call is going to continue to drop anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:I do tend to lump resource depletion in with climate change just because it's all we're dealing with this century, the limiting factor in this case being sand. Obviously large powerful countries will keep their ports maintained the longest, but smaller less diversified economies that have to import building materials will fall behind, dragging their regional economies down and feeding back into the downward trade spiral. Can we decommission our nuclear arsenal and make sand at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Eddy-Baby posted:No problem can be solved incrementally, after all I have no problem solving problems incrementally. But this isn't solving the problem incrementally; it's just a complete misunderstanding of the problem. You could ban all consumer plastics in the US and it would make essentially no difference to ocean plastic pollution. As the article points out, the source of nearly half of the plastic is fishing nets, and most of the rest comes from countries without formal waste disposal systems. At a certain level every little bit helps, but the way people are going about this is counter-productive because it's appeasing people by making a 'big change' that actually accomplishes next to nothing, and promotes the false belief that lifestyle choices can counter a problem that needs systematic solutions. If San Francisco had banned seafood, that might have been a step in the right direction. But good luck getting tech entrepreneurs to forgo their shrimp scampi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Banning consumer plastics for the entire US would be an insignificant small step, but banning seafood for one city on the other hand
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Eddy-Baby posted:Banning consumer plastics for the entire US would be an insignificant small step, but banning seafood for one city on the other hand Yep, because commercial fishing deposits about half of all ocean plastic while US disposable plastics are the source of less than 1%. It would be better to start small on something that's a genuine problem than to go big on a minor one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yep, because commercial fishing deposits about half of all ocean plastic while US disposable plastics are the source of less than 1%. It would be better to start small on something that's a genuine problem than to go big on a minor one. Is "US disposable plastics" plastics meant to be thrown away or all of the plastic that is actually thrown away?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
The demand for seafood seems strong enough that prohibition wouldn't pass in the first place. I don't think repeating history is going to help really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:Is "US disposable plastics" plastics meant to be thrown away or all of the plastic that is actually thrown away? The former, as opposed to durable plastic. It basically means stuff like plastic bags, takeout containers, straws, etc. Both combined are less than 1% of global plastic pollution but disposable makes up the lion's share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:The demand for seafood seems strong enough that prohibition wouldn't pass in the first place. I don't think repeating history is going to help really. Yeah, I don't actually want to ban it, and the article outlines that they're trying to enact measures that could prevent the dumping of nets and identify perpetrators when they are. But if you're concerned about plastic pollution and absolutely must ban something, seafood would be the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Intuitively it seems like a ban on disposable plastics for a large and populous country might have more effects on how plastic is used industrially than to try to starve the fishing industry by embargoing its products in a single city - even one filled with tech entrepreneurs
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Detach yourself from the cult of progress and adopt an ethos that lets you find some measure of joy in the astonishingly short period that you and all other humans will exist. In the interest of not making this thread about me, I have put my reply in a more appropriate place. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3862224&pagenumber=2#post486299161
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Also  I will never post in this thread again for my sanity and of those reading this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Also You'll be alright mate, hope you snap out of your depression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:10
|
|
