Hacker News Reader

So over the next 85 years we're expecting a rise of 2-10m based on current warming with the low end hoping that we maintain only 2c by the end of the century, which currently seems unlikely. Follow the link at the bottom and ask yourself what the US is going to do without Florida, or how much the dams across the Golden Gate (and Houston, New York, DC, Shanghai, London) are going to cost to prevent the inundation of Sacramento and the destruction of California farming.

We're ignoring poor places like Bangladesh with a population of 200Mil (or Indonesia with 1Bil), which will likely be largely depopulated.

I'm now going to past text I used in an earlier comment: _Florida is porous. You can build walls but they don't do much. The water will rise to cover the entire peninsula. Long before that tides and storm surge will destroy all of the surface roads to coastal cities. I personally wouldn't lend money there for longer than 30years._ http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

I also don't think that global warming will end civilization for the same reasons as you. However, a refuge crisis, wars over food and water and hundreds of millions dead will be a heavy blow that might set us back for a long time. There is little money for colonizing Mars when you have to spend it all for killing revolutionaries.

Agreed. This is not an argument for not taking climate change seriously and doing all we reasonably can.

It'll also be pretty hard to colonize Mars when SpaceX and Florida no longer exist.

I would just say in response to your post: the start of Syria's troubles are considered by some to begin with an unseasonable and sustained drought.

That's one country's population sudden injection into the rich Western world you consider to be facing limited fallout, and we've witnessed the results and the reactions.

I don't think most people can picture the real effects of sustained and mass migration, even if you're fortunate enough to enjoy the perks of Western life.

I agree, but look at the backlash in Europe and the US. Does it seem likely that a 10x increase in the turmoil that caused Syria will result in more migrants and refugees to western countries? I highly doubt it.

Unfortunately, I think it highly likely that rich western democracies will turn their backs on developing nations and their tens of millions of refugees. North America, Japan, Australia, and NZ are particularly well suited for this geographically, but Europe will isolate itself as much as possible as well.

I think you're going to find that as huge parts of Africa and the Middle East cease to be capable of supporting the large number of people who live there, you will see migration like never before. You think people fleeing from absolute misery are going to care that their welcome will be less than warm?

For now it's a relative trickle, but given time and a lack of care and you'll see floods. As you say, look at the backlash... imagine what a 10x or 100x backlash will look like. Now remember that we all have nuclear weapons on a hair trigger.

The ability to isolate yourself comes with its own costs. Turning away refugees is one thing; but what happens when people are sufficiently desperate that they will be willing to take up arms to secure a place under the sun for themselves and their kin?

...And then, after slaughtering those people and years of insularity, nationalism, and populism... what's going to be left, but for those insular nations to fight over remaining resources?

I can't see a nuclear nation shrugging and saying, "Well I guess we're conquered! Here are the keys..."

Using a nuke to fight off a tide of refugees is like bringing a grenade to a fist fight. Do you think the people who are already here are going to tolerate the wholesale slaughter of their family members who are trying to rejoin them? What about all of their friends? No. If we don't find some way to rescue everybody we will be torn apart by civil war.

Sounds like a good argument to not let even one of them in.

You must must've missed the part where I mentioned that they are already here. They are us.

We aren't going to be able to pull up the ladder. People will try, though, and it will get very ugly, very fast.

Exactly, and then there will be war.

If by "here" you mean North America and Western Europe then yes, they will pay the price for their diversity. Places like Japan and China that people say are "xenophobic" might turn out to have the better survival strategy.

Using a nuke to fight off a tide of refugees is like bringing a grenade to a fist fight.

Yeah, or firebombing a defeated nation. Who would do such a thing? Oh right... humanity.

Of course not. But do understand that we're talking about large scale warfare here. Even if you're willing to set moral issues aside, it's not going to be cheap. Those who want to isolate their countries from "third world problems" are going to pay for it in cold hard cash. Thus, even they cannot truly claim to be unaffected.

Average temperature rises, icecaps melt, sea levels rise, shores recede. Think about where most of the global tech and financial infrastructure currently is.

edit: Apparently I didn't read your comment; you understand that the coasts will be lost. Not only do the more sparsely populated inland regions not have the infrastructure to take in the coast dwellers, but the core instruments of modern civilization will literally be underwater.

The question is how accurate are the estimates?

Estimating in a complex system where one problem triggers another, cascading with feedback loops, is a messy business.

So the outcome could be either far more or far less dire than we think.

As you put it, know one knows for sure. So it's prudent to assume the worst.

Thank you. I would personally be beyond thrilled if I ended up being, "That cranky bastard who always brought up environmental and social doom." I would feel pretty foolish however, if I bet on that outcome, and just hoped for it to materialize.

You think given the way things are going today, civilization as we know it will survive this?

> an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a substantial decrease in quality of life for generations.

You phrase this as a rhetorical question, as if it's obvious that given "the way things are going today", of course we won't survive.

I don't really know what you're referring to. On a century-long scale, what is "going on today" that is so abnormally terrible?