Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on slrpnk.net

8 replies

slrpnk.net

Don't do it. Quit fighting nature. Move inland. Quit living in cities! Okay, I know no one is going to do any of this.

3
silence7reply
slrpnk.net

San Francisco Bay is kind of unique; there are parts of it where geology and topography let you build levees and keep back the sea. One community, Alviso, is at ~13 feet below sea level due to land subsidence.

I don't expect people anywhere to stop living in cities; they've got enormous advantages in terms specialization letting people be more productive and therefore society as a whole live better.

1

Yeah, but from an anthropologist view, cities (and specialization) have basically been the downfall of our species. I don't know; I guess bolo'bolo mentioned some city-like places supported by farms. (and Çatalhöyük)

1
sh.itjust.works

At a certain point, nature always wins. Why expend absurd amounts of money and labour on a fruitless endeavour?

1
silence7reply
slrpnk.net

It's like paying rent; the landlord still owns the property, but it gets you the ability to to use it for a while.

1
sh.itjust.works

People pay a landlord rent (most often) because they don’t have any other realistic options. In this case we do. The money is going to be spent regardless, why not spend it on something that is more long-term?

1
silence7reply
slrpnk.net

Because a century is longer than a lifetime. That's enough for most people when it comes to a place to live

1

You reached the end

The sea is rising — and the clock is ticking | The San Francisco Bay Area will need an estimated $110 billion to combat sea-level rise in the coming decades | Spyke