The Bay Area will need to mount a concerted effort to combat devastating sea-level rise in the coming decades. How and whether cities and counties will be able to get the funding is the $110 billion question.
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.
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?
I kind of agree with you, but I think you look at it too simplefied.
In this case we do (have realistic options)
Moving inland? Live where? Work what? How to financially bridge the time between having no jobs?
I know it’s weird worrying about money when the place you live in gets destroyed. But you also gotta eat to live.
Of course it’s doubtful to pour in our energy when in the end it’ll be a lost case. Unfortunately we live in a world, where people can’t even worry about these things because they worry about the end of the month before the next paycheck.
You could say they could sell their properties, but if enough people do that (or think living there has no future), the properties quickly become worthless and nobody wants to buy.
So first you’d need to provide a place with opportunities for these people to have a place to go to. And then it’ll still be hard because many people get emotionally attached to where they live. You can see that in countries with disappearing islands, where the government builds a replacement village for the people. They get a new hope, a new house in a community, still some people refuse to go.
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)
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.
At a certain point, nature always wins. Why expend absurd amounts of money and labour on a fruitless endeavour?
It’s like paying rent; the landlord still owns the property, but it gets you the ability to to use it for a while.
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?
I kind of agree with you, but I think you look at it too simplefied.
Moving inland? Live where? Work what? How to financially bridge the time between having no jobs?
I know it’s weird worrying about money when the place you live in gets destroyed. But you also gotta eat to live.
Of course it’s doubtful to pour in our energy when in the end it’ll be a lost case. Unfortunately we live in a world, where people can’t even worry about these things because they worry about the end of the month before the next paycheck.
You could say they could sell their properties, but if enough people do that (or think living there has no future), the properties quickly become worthless and nobody wants to buy.
So first you’d need to provide a place with opportunities for these people to have a place to go to. And then it’ll still be hard because many people get emotionally attached to where they live. You can see that in countries with disappearing islands, where the government builds a replacement village for the people. They get a new hope, a new house in a community, still some people refuse to go.
Because a century is longer than a lifetime. That’s enough for most people when it comes to a place to live
Which is why we are in the mess we are in. Kicking the can down the road.
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)