We’ll simply so what every other human has done when faced with crisis or climate change. We’ll move and adapt, some will die, some will live. It will suck, and it’s sucked before, but we’ll survive, perhaps even thrive.
Comments I’ve gathered on lemmy:
“I’d rather just die.”
“I’ll kill myself before I have to suffer.”
“Stop having kids you’re condemning to eternal torment.”
OK, you’ve failed at evolution. Nothing wrong with that! But the better adapted will live on, as always.
Lemmy: FUCK YOU!
Weird seeing an entire generation just say, “Fuck it. I’ll lie down and die. The capitalists and billionaires killed me.”
Yes.
Those towns can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Not your mama.
Only for the millionaires settlements. All the rest can pay for themselves.
Yeah, the rich will make sure their real estate losses are taken on by society and many will literally profit when one of their homes fall into the sea.
This unfortunately is not a case with much high quality schadenfreude since yet again the rich have made stupid selfish choices and will refuse to face the consequences.
When amoc or Thwaites collapses it isn’t like we are going to have a choice. (The choice has already been made by not radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
Yes. We already do that.
I’ve been curious about this myself, but haven’t heard any news to this effect. Can you provide any examples of this happening in the past (preferably within the last 50 years)?
It’s mostly going to be more than 50 years ago, but we did it a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_the_United_States
I don’t want to discount the people who lost land and homes due to the creation of dams and reservoirs (My great grandpa purportedly lost his home due to some of this), but that feels really different than losing a coastal town due to rising sea levels.
Obviously from an American perspective, FEMA is very imperfect, but that we have structures and systems like FEMA makes it feel like people in coastal towns that get “washed away” will have some form of safety net to fall back on.
Am I missing something in that assessment?
I remember a story from 2024 where some tiny town (forget the name, East coast somewhere) had built a bunch of residential houses in a landslide area and the residents were frustrated that the government wasn’t bailing them out. Had some wacky pictures. Maybe it was this one in California? I think it was a different one.
It was 100 years ago, but Bayocean, Oregon a town with 2,000 residents slowly fell into the Pacific Ocean after they tried to mess with the coastline. The last remaining building fell into the ocean in 1971. No attempt to bail out the homeowners at any point.
Disaster strikes, and the homeowners are extremely lucky if we bail them out. Usually we don’t.
Those are some interesting reads, and really appreciate the response + resources.
I do feel the attempt to buyout the residents in the CA example is a good move, but it does basically amount to abandoning the town (as the OP seems to think will be the norm. Glad the state is attempting to do something to help, even if it feels like a half measure.
It feels like FEMA (as imperfect as they are) would have been a program that would’ve helped if a landslide wiped out a town though? Either that or the builders of the township would’ve had to sign away a bunch of their rights to that as part of building into the area (kinda feels like the case for Bayocean?) if it was known to be disaster prone.
Idk, how does the community feel about building in disaster prone areas? Like, if you want to build a house in a flood zone, I think you should be allowed to do it, but also, you’re on your own when a flood comes, ya know?
