[creatonez]

Yes, society will "adapt", by exacerbating inequality. Massive amounts of resources will be wasted on ideas like "add 2 feet of gravel and pave it again" to allow the super rich to keep their properties for a few years longer, and the only actual workable solution (building new sustainable homes and allowing people to relocate to them for free) will be ignored.

[_3u10]

Wouldn't society focusing on construction jobs for blue collar workers over global recycling and carbon trading schemes be less unequal.

I say if the finance bros want their skyscrapers to remain above water they need to hire construction workers rather than make consumer goods in the developing world more expensive through regulation.

[kodyo]

There's the authoritarian collectivist power differential take! I knew you were coming, you little rascal!

Massive amounts of resources are being wasted on bad climate ideas now. Poor people have bigger problems. That certain patches of land might be squishier in 100 years isn't in their top 10.

[sundaeofshock]

Did you even bother to read the article? They are saying that these impacts will be felt as soon as 2030.

[rs999gti]

> as soon as 2030

Is there anywhere someone can bet on this?

[xracy]

The impacts are being felt now. Droughts, and Extreme weather events throughout the world are getting more extreme.

[kodyo]

Yep. Been reading variations of the same article for decades. Captain Planet up there says building bridges and moving dirt around causes inequity, though, so I guess we have to live with it.

[creatonez]

> says building bridges and moving dirt around causes inequity

Infrastructure is one of the most expensive things people interact with on a regular basis. Choices in how we build infrastructure redirects society's resources on a massive scale. So yes, I do think it's plausible that huge investments in water-resistant infrastructure and wasteful attempts to build Dubai-style island suburbs will redirect resources away from more important issues, like the pressing need in the US to fix existing bridges and roads, build 1.5 million more houses, earthquake-proof the infrastructure in the pacific northwest, and figure out how to get 4800 GW more on the electrical grid cleanly.

[kodyo]

I agree with you. More power. More houses. More roads. More bridges. More freedom to build it all.

But back to the story at hand: a few motivated people can shore up Old Town Road. All they need is an economic reason to do it.

[creatonez]

When solutions really are that simple, yes, go for the solution that is simple. Of course. Society in general doesn't put enough weight on simple low-tech solutions.

But before prescribing solutions for the general case (the general idea of houses being cut off from the main land), assume that you will face the worst case scenario of complexity and tons of sub-problems -- for example, I'm sure some of the cases examined by this research will also have the problem of underground gas lines, plumbing, electrical, communications services -- and maybe a road that has been damaged beyond trivial repair. It's best to treat those scenarios as losses, especially if additional erosion is predicted in the next 20 or so years and the fix requires much more expensive engineering. Otherwise we will get trapped into a pattern that wastes the best resources of the entire system, for the sake of a few homeowners.

[paulryanrogers]

Name calling doesn't strengthen your argument.

[kodyo]

I'm not trying to convince anybody. Humiliation and mockery are how you deal with authoritarians.

[paulryanrogers]

Perhaps that's how you deal with those you see as authorities, but it violates the site guidelines:

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.

[_3u10]

It's interesting that the collectivist power differential never extends to the state vs. the individual, no the state is always grand and good, except when it's run by other collectivists.