Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Because his explanation is bullocks. The whole argument is.
What exactly is bullocks about it?
The sea level doesn't just rise one day. It's a slow process that'll happen over decades. Many of the people living in those houses now probably want to sell in the near future while they still can. They might not get back what they paid but in 5 years you're not going to get even that so better cut your losses. At some point the coastline gets so close that those houses will just be abandoned, demolished and people will have moved further inland.
It’s focused on some ideal coastline that fits the argument well.
In reality you will see storms that set underwater whole metropoles repeatedly, think like New Orleans a few years back, but on a yearly base.
And when it comes to the really big metropoles in Asia, they don’t have much options to properly relocate millions of people at ones.
The likes of Shapiro won’t welcome them in the USA, even if they promise to stay in the rural centers.
I'm having some trouble understanding what exactly is the confusion here. If the sea level rises it's not like people will just keep living underwater. They have to move somewhere else. Entire cities and towns has to be relocated elsewhere. Besides building massive sea walls there's just no other option. This in no way implies it's not going to absolutely suck for the people living there. Ofcourse it does.
What exactly is it that Ben is wrong about here? This is really confusing to me
He’s pretending that this will just go smoothly with the help of the free market.
Are we watching the same video? At what point is he implying that?
His trope and that of the people he finances is climate change denial and libertarianism. It doesn’t need to be in that video, but that’s the context he philosophizes in.
I haven't heard him ever denying climate change. At best he has just been questioning its severity of it. Even in this talk in question he says: "I'm not saying that it's not happening. It may be happening. I'm happy to say that it may be happening. I may even be happy to say that it's probably happening"