Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

One way or the other, people will be doing their part. Might as well get used to consuming less now before contraction forces the issue.

View on HN

Ideally, but I wonder if that's how the psychology will play out. People faced with an uncertain future may just as likely throw caution to the wind instead? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-young-worker...

It’s more about building your life to maximize self sufficiency with the understanding that you will still need to rely on society for some needs. Also living somewhere with low climate risk and high confidence of access to fresh water for the remainder of your life (and that of loved ones, if applicable).

When contraction occurs, if you’ve planned properly, it’ll be news you read about, not impact on your life.

TLDR Optimize for the expectation of persistent volatility.

Where are these places?

Well, there are plenty of maps that show which areas will be impacted more than others.

Climate havens, near the great lakes in the US.

FEMA has a list somewhere, but IIRC, the top of it included places like Buffalo, a few cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ann Arbor. Established cities along the great lakes are supposedly best positioned, but I've seen reports indicating that the age of the cities' infrastructure was a weakness for basically every one of the supposed climate havens

This site is pretty good for checking out the various risks by county or census tract for about 15 different climate risks.

https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map

Jurisdiction is crucial too.

The chances that a Western government will leave you alone during all of this are virtually zero.

The chances you'll do better elsewhere are worse, unless you're a warlord. I have looked at places off the map for the next 100 years for this purpose. Maybe I'm wrong, where would you go to be self sufficient and ungovernable outside the Western world?

Why? Why it's not better to enjoy why it lasts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com