Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfengel | Hacker News Reader

Unlike climate change, this is a self correcting problem. We'll tap the last of the fresh water, and then no more sea level rise (from that source).

Problem solved, once and for all.

View on HN

Solutions that include mass die-off of human populations are generally considered incomplete

But they are effective in reducing emissions.

I love the first world perspective. It pretends to be erudite while being completely inhuman. As if "emissions" are something you could ever get rid of. Any excuse to avoid making their own lives more efficient or the distribution of resources more fair.

What is a "fair" distribution of resources in your perspective, in general.

Edit: Um okay, downvotes are quite telling.

I believe it was a joke.

This is an often repeated point, and many proponent of population reduction embrace it.

I think that's completely ignoring our consumption patterns. We're totally up to the challenge of burning twice the resources with only half the population.

Just like the coal, gas, oil and forests - so exactly like climate change, in fact...

(It's a problem that saturates but not a problem that self-corrects, and the saturation point is undesirable in any case)

The polar ice caps are the same way. Once we melt all the ice then the sea level rise will stop, and we can just deal with the change in lifestyle.

I think the change in lifestyle from using up all the groundwater would be pretty severe.

personally i'm just going to evolve

Not developing mutations to live in a mad max style future shows lack of initiative

I have a tub in the kitchen sink to capture all dishwater, and make 4-5 trips outside to dump the water daily, into watering tubes that are six inches deep, around the dripline of each tree. Here in the SW US it is almost pointless to water at the surface, 90% or so is lost to evaporation within a day.

You can also hibernate in pokeballs when things get bad.

Foolproof plan.

Considering current shitshow reaction to having to deal with smaller issues I'm not optimistic about how that's going to play out.

It’s a good reminder that “climate change” will be a minor inconvenience for the rich, and an existential crisis for everyone else.

And that most of the inconvience will be needing to deploy robots to keep the poor away.

thats what revolutionary movements are for: to organize "everyone else" and physically purge the elites that dont care about the crisis affecting regular people

Nowadays the revolutionary movements listen to Twitter and go hunting immigrants instead, the elite has never been safer?

The Four conditions for revolution haven't been met yet

Well, that applies to most of our habitat-change problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com