Places Are Increasingly Getting So Hot That People Just Die
futurism.com
futurism.com
thankfully, much of the population are within easy reach of conditioned air, either their home, office or an indoor mall. many parts of the shopping district are connected underground, so that people don't have to over-expose themselves to the climate to get from place to place.
we've not been able to terraform our habitat, but we've been able to create sufficient pockets of habitable spaces for us to continue functioning as a society.
it's always a bit of a fascination for me. soon strenous outdoor activities in singapore will be completely impossible, and maybe, in the near future, even idling outside will be a risky endeavour. this feels almost dune-like, except frank herbert never thought lethal humidity would be the other way around.
Admittedly, I seem to live in a hot part of town (inland, no wind, densely built urban island with little greenery) and on the top floor of an older building.
Either way, I think I’ll need to move back to Australia soon. I can handle a 40+ degree dry Adelaide summer, but constant 30 degrees @ 85% humidity is just too much.
In fact, we already see that happening in many places, including Europe. Hungary is well down that road.
Once we have enough fascist governments, expect war, because fascism and war go together.
And the same is now happening in Poland.
I think they mean that heavy migration pressure rightly or wrongly does tend to lead to distrust of "others" in society. And all forms of distrust in society are things that Fascism does prey on.
Hungary is in a condition where the government in power is eroding its democratic institutions. Many US states, similarly, have enacted or are in the middle of enacting measures aimed at making it harder for a certain class of citizen to vote. Are Hungary and these states Fascist? By formal definitions, we can never declare any particular government fascist unless they agree, in public. But their actions are characteristic of fascism, and move society in that direction. The practice of hiding behind a formal definition is itself characteristic, post WWII.
If Hungary, Poland or any country would come up with the idea of NOT having documentation for voting, EU would come down on them harder than the current LGBT saga. It really depends from what angle you look at it. Most of the world would see in their respective countries what Republicans want/do as common sense. I really don't think this is an issue that you could win people over, that is why it's silence from the international community and it's local politics regarding your states and voting rights.
The equatorial regions are basically fucked. This will trigger mass migration on the scale of billions with everything that entails :/
Sure, you can die of cold, and given technology at some level it becomes really too cold for reasonable habitability, but that is quite low in relation to what we see around the world. And even our far ancestors could already "avoid" cold by just making fire, shelters, putting on cloth. Today we have whole cities built in permafrost, enduring -40°C temperatures just fine.. with the right clothing put on you can even survive outside for a significant amount of time.
If it is getting too hot (imagine 5°C over wet bulb temperature or more) there is nothing we can do but shelter in with air condition and hope electricity keeps going (which also becomes a problem at certain temperature), no going outside anymore.
AC is only omnipresent in the US, very recent modern technology, but even in the richest countries in Europe most have none at home or even work.. (it is just normal). Sure we riches can buy one, but situation around the world is very different.
Ok clarified, I'm just being Captain Obvious here, and OP must be another form of climate change denial.
Large numbers of people really do, even today, die of both cold and heat. That's one of the dangers for for people who are homeless or too poor to pay to heat their homes properly. If temperatures change, the change in death rates should be measured using the overall change in death rates, not just the change in heat deaths. If that statement about measuring the overall impact of climate change on death rates using net change in death rates constitutes "climate change denial" for you, then a "form of climate change denial" is a form of religious heresy for you, and there's no point arguing mere statistical matters.
No, but how & how many people die to cold right now will be significantly different to how & how many people may die due to heat in the future due to climate change.
It is really just a strawman apples to oranges comparison to make here at all, because also:
And I'm further saying that climate change will likely also not change due to how many people die to cold right now.. where do you have this from? We get more persistant extremes both directions, right now!
> no point arguing mere statistical matters.
That's cheap... so no numbers or relative scale?
There's an entire continent, larger than Europe or Australia, that has zero permanent residents because it is too cold for reasonable habitability.
With more cold deaths currently than heat deaths, an increase in average temperature is more likely to reduce total deaths than increase them. If saving lives is your real goal, net lives saved/lost should be your yardstick, regardless of your opinion about the relative magnitude of heat deaths and cold deaths. But if your real agenda is something else then, sure, talking about increased heat deaths without ever mentioning reduced cold deaths might better serve your needs.
I disagree even to that. Any numbers for that statement, at least rough dimensions?
And, given world average rising a few more °C, and we get a similar extreme weather condition persisting for few days like described here, but where wet bulb goes not just close/slightly but significantly over 35°C, what will that numbers be in poor.. but heck, even in rich countries?
You cannot be serious..
(Adding: Btw.. after all what models tell and we already see, we are in general not getting rid of extreme colds as well, but even getting also more persisting ones of these.. )
I'm arguing that the scale matters, so please give me numbers, which you seem to know at least for the now?
It is surely not a 1-to-1 exchange right now, and not in the future.
So how many lives lost due to heat vs due to cold now?
And what are your predictions for the future (that as far as I get it deviate extremely from scientific consensus)?
> say homeless and poor people dying of the cold, is too trivial in your opinion to matter in public policy discussions?
Oh come one, now you are trolling me. I didn't say and mean that at all..
Cold weather 20 times deadlier than hot. Moderately high/low temperatures responsible for most of the deaths rather than extremes.
This is an interesting piece of anecdata.[1]
Of course there is other anecdata for any and every other set of permutations, but mentioning all of that every time is a bit silly.
[1] Since anecdata is a neologism to begin with, I presume that attempting to insist on "anecdatum" is probably a lost cause. :-/
There is an ever continuing push for creating extremely high density urban areas with hardly any greenery. Those are becoming barely habitable.
Cramped offices, people packed like sardines.
Does it have to be this way to sustain economic activity that leads to prosperity? Can’t we somehow spread it out a little more and give everyone some room to breathe?
Now, a heat difference (resulting in heat movement) can be made to do useful work.