OlwenaSedai

Help me understand: religiosity

Recommended Posts

@CUBAREY regarding actresses salary Vs male salary (Hollywood) being driven by market demand, there are several articles that reference a study stating that movies starring females earn more than movies starring men. 

 

The problem with that study is that there may be a bias in how the data was collected - it excludes ensemble casts with equal m/f screen time, but uses Les miserables as the example - I don't remember details of the film, but the live version is relatively male dominated. Additionally they exclude animated films or films starring none human characters - eg transformers...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indiewire.com/2015/10/research-shows-box-office-hits-with-female-protagonists-outearn-blockbusters-with-male-leads-212942/amp/ 

 

The interesting question would be to compare the average salaries within those films

 

But regardless even if the methodology is potentially flawed it suggests there's some ambiguity over who actually earns more money at the box office

 

And similar but different https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-43146026

 

 

The TLDR is that the salaries are market driven, but it's at least possible it's being driven by a perception of the market and not the reality

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nolder if you want to argue traditional roles and how they benefit the survival of the species then you probably shouldn't overlook the necessity of child care/raising and actual carrying to term etc lol 

 

In terms of survival of the species both are completely necessary

 

I'm kind of going to ignore the rest, although I'm happy to report that I am very happy with my education and job lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BFG said:

@Nolder if you want to argue traditional roles and how they benefit the survival of the species then you probably shouldn't overlook the necessity of child care/raising and actual carrying to term etc lol 

I'm not sure that I did that?

If I did it was unintentional.

 

16 minutes ago, BFG said:

In terms of survival of the species both are completely necessary

 

I'm kind of going to ignore the rest, although I'm happy to report that I am very happy with my education and job lol

Well that's good. There may be a time in your life when that changes.

Or maybe not. The statistics don't say 100% of women are unhappy with modern life it just indicates that many (I would venture to say a majority of women even, although it's been a while since I actually looked at these statistics so I could be wrong on that) women, in an increasing amount over time, are unhappy.

 

There will always be outliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

I'm not sure that I did that?

If I did it was unintentional.

Fair enough

Quote

 

Well that's good. There may be a time in your life when that changes.

Or maybe not. The statistics don't say 100% of women are unhappy with modern life it just indicates that many (I would venture to say a majority of women even, although it's been a while since I actually looked at these statistics so I could be wrong on that) women, in an increasing amount over time, are unhappy.

 

There will always be outliers.

I'll admit I skimmed the portion of thread where these studies were initially discussed so my assumptions/memory here may be wildly wrong... 

 

But basically the argument is that women are less happy because now we're more stressed, have more concerns over work, finance, work and family life etc..? I don't think there's any point in arguing this, I don't see any logical reason for it not to be true. I have no doubt that women have more stress than we did 50 years ago (that may flip again if you go back further but I suspect it's only conjecture as to how we think women would have felt) (and also in general this considers western civilization and specifically the nuclear family compared to today)

 

 

That said i don't think it's really relevant :unsure: women aren't children

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BFG said:

But basically the argument is that women are less happy because now we're more stressed, have more concerns over work, finance, work and family life etc..?

Well we can't know the reason why.

 

I think it has more to do with women being biologically tuned over a couple million years to have and raise kids while men provided the means to do so. It's what women find fulfilling in life and it's what they are best at. Men are made to labor and war and it's what they find most fulfilling. In both cases our society has mostly robbed the sexes of both of these things to a large degree. You can see that men are hurting too, maybe even more so, via the extremely high male suicide rate.

 

Now I want to be very clear because I know a lot of people will want to take that last paragraph and be offended. I am not saying necessarily that I want women "barefoot pregnant in the kitchen". I am saying that our human evolutionary path took us to a place where men and women naturally have certain roles and it's because of that it's what we biologically want to do and it's what we are best at. I don't think all women should never work or that every women should/must absolutely get married and have kids. I just think that most women WANT to have kids and raise them and by not doing so it makes them unhappy.

 

I also want to add that there are of course many OTHER factors to why women are/could be unhappy. I think a lack of religion for example to bring us back to the topic hits both men and women hard sometimes. As you said above an increase in stress is probably another factor. 

 

8 hours ago, BFG said:

I don't think there's any point in arguing this, I don't see any logical reason for it not to be true. I have no doubt that women have more stress than we did 50 years ago (that may flip again if you go back further but I suspect it's only conjecture as to how we think women would have felt) (and also in general this considers western civilization and specifically the nuclear family compared to today)

Well, ok. I've outlined my ideas and your theory (stress) certainly could be the primary factor.

We'll just have to disagree.

 

8 hours ago, BFG said:

 

That said i don't think it's really relevant :unsure: women aren't children

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nolder said:

Well we can't know the reason why.

 

I think it has more to do with women being biologically tuned over a couple million years to have and raise kids while men provided the means to do so. It's what women find fulfilling in life and it's what they are best at. Men are made to labor and war and it's what they find most fulfilling. In both cases our society has mostly robbed the sexes of both of these things to a large degree. You can see that men are hurting too, maybe even more so, via the extremely high male suicide rate.

 

Now I want to be very clear because I know a lot of people will want to take that last paragraph and be offended. I am not saying necessarily that I want women "barefoot pregnant in the kitchen". I am saying that our human evolutionary path took us to a place where men and women naturally have certain roles and it's because of that it's what we biologically want to do and it's what we are best at. I don't think all women should never work or that every women should/must absolutely get married and have kids. I just think that most women WANT to have kids and raise them and by not doing so it makes them unhappy.

 

Since the only real truth is found in adverts (commercials) to paraphrase 

"I never heard my father, or grandfather on their death beds wishing they'd spent more time at work and less with family" 

More seriously, I suspect the majority of people regardless of sex want to have and raise children, and want to spend time with them as they're growing up, but the practicalities get in the way, someone has (most of the time) to work

 

 

29 minutes ago, Nolder said:

 

I also want to add that there are of course many OTHER factors to why women are/could be unhappy. I think a lack of religion for example to bring us back to the topic hits both men and women hard sometimes. As you said above an increase in stress is probably another factor. 

 

Well, ok. I've outlined my ideas and your theory (stress) certainly could be the primary factor.

We'll just have to disagree.

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree lol

 

You're right that to draw meaningful conclusions we need far more data, things I'd query based on observations are, once women having a full time job and kids became more normal who in the relationship did the majority of the housework/child raising while having a full time job, who gave up or dialled back their dream job to raise children etc, what jobs were/are realistically available that fit around the school run (since for most people childcare is more expensive than a second job) etc etc etc

 

I disagree religion is needed to make people happy, but that circles back to the value in life discussion that won't go anywhere new

 

29 minutes ago, Nolder said:

 

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

In general the happiest people are young children who mostly live stress-free (comparatively to their parents/adults in their social group), but everyone has to grow up. In general happiness is probably the most important metric that matters, but it's more complicated than happy yes/no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In general the happiest people are young children who mostly live stress-free (comparatively to their parents/adults in their social group), but everyone has to grow up. In general happiness is probably the most important metric that matters, but it's more complicated than happy yes/no..."

 

I totally disagree, while happiness is indeed a the most important metric for children, it is a fleeting emotion with no lasting substance in an adult. More enlightening are not question about once happiness but about once "forefillment" and having purpose or being contented with one's life, which is rather different from experiencing "happiness". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your objection boils down to how you define happy /shrug 

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment though, superficial, surface level happiness isn't an important metric, deeper happiness/well-being is

 

But also

 

happy 

1. feeling or showing pleasure or contentment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BFG said:

Your objection boils down to how you define happy /shrug 

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment though, superficial, surface level happiness isn't an important metric, deeper happiness/well-being is

 

But also

 

happy 

1. feeling or showing pleasure or contentment

 

 

"Even though most of us often consider happiness and contentment as synonymous, this is inaccurate because there is a difference between their meanings. Words such as happiness, contentment, joy, and elation all refer to positive emotions or states that an individual experiences, but they all carry specific meanings, which are different from one another. Happiness refers to a state of being happy or feeling pleasure. On the other hand, contentment refers to a state of being satisfied. The main difference between happiness and contentment is that, while happiness denotes an emotional state, which is more short term, contentment refers to a state, which is long term. Unlike happiness, contentment involves a calmness, which is very stable. Through this article let us examine some of the key differences between happiness and contentment." 

 

 

"Contentment can be defined as satisfaction. This cannot be equated with happiness because it is seen more like a basic requirement that leads to happiness. Unlike happiness, which usually involves moments of extreme joy or elation, contentment is much more long term. It can even be considered as a way of life. When an individual is satisfied with his life situation and accepts his condition, this creates an aura of contentment. In this sense, contentment involves enjoying the beauty of one’s life in a calm manner. Also, contentment is usually not influenced by external forces. If an individual is not content with his life, he can experience moments of joy and happiness, but these will last only for a short time."

What is the difference between Happiness and Contentment?

• Definition of Happiness and Contentment:

• Happiness can be defined as the state of being happy or else showing or feeling pleasure.

• Contentment can be defined as satisfaction.

• Nature:

• Happiness is an emotional state that is temporary as it can come and go based on the situations that we face in life.

• Contentment is more of a way of life.

• Fading Away and Lasting:

• Happiness involves moments of joy, which fades away.

• Contentment includes a calmness that lasts.

• Connection between Happiness and Contentment:

• A person can be happy as well as content because happiness adds a bit more spark to an already satisfied individual.

• A person can be happy without being content, in which case there will be moments of happiness in a dissatisfied life.

• Durability:

• Happiness is short term.

• Contentment is long term.

• External Factors:

• Happiness is influenced by external factors.

• Happiness is very subjective.

• Contentment is not influenced by external factors."   https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-happiness-and-vs-contentment/

 

 

Happiness and contentment are often used as synonyms but in fact there is a rather large difference between the two as noted in the discussion a above.  It is the difference which you noted happiness is a shortterm and surface emotion and contentment is a more substantial and longer term  concept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

 

"Islam destroyed its own "Golden Age" - Neil deGrasse Tyson & Steven Weinberg"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2018 at 2:28 PM, CUBAREY said:

"

 

"Islam destroyed its own "Golden Age" - Neil deGrasse Tyson & Steven Weinberg"

 

 

 

 

I disagree with his opening statement, though agree with the warning against fundamentalist religion rejecting science.

 

Modern conservatism, of which modern christianity is a core part, is solidly against any science which challenges their beliefs, or causes them to reconsider their world view.

 

This talk can better be seen as a warning against what's currently happening in western christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it read as a warning against any religion getting to involved in government/policy that it is actually able to influence it.

 

Basically, keep religion out of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

 

Also, it's in the public interest to invest in scientific research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Modern conservatism, of which modern christianity is a core part, is solidly against any science which challenges their beliefs, or causes them to reconsider their world view."

 

Moderen conservatism is not against science. Their are instances like the global waming debate in which we are skeptical based on the fact that we think it's "bad" science. We think that the proponetns have manipulated the math and have changed the goal posts. It's not that we challenge the scientific method is it that we view the "proof" of global warming" (or at least its extent and whether it's primarily the result of man made events) is sketchy at best.

 

Some Christian Fundamentalists who are part of Modern Coonservative to object to some science that  challenges their beliefs. It should be said that this is a small part of science overall and not even all Fundementalist Christians take that position.

 

Further and more importantly, you miss the main point of Tysen and Weinberg. At the beginning of the video Weinberg explicitely acknowledge that some Christian Fundementalist do reject some science. However their main point was that the Golden Age of Islam ended because the teachings of a Muslim scholar rejected all scientific knowledge as essentially evil. These teachings not only became a core tenant of Islam in the 11th century it continued to be a core tenant of Islam since, up to and including today. 

 

Their is a major difference between a section of a political movement objecting to some scientific theories and an entire Society that is based on theocratic principles believing that the scientific method and science itself is Evil.

 

 

"Also, it's in the public interest to invest in scientific research."

 

Well I agree that it's in the public interest to allow unfettered scientific research, whether investment ( I presume you mean public financed research) is in the public interest is at least debatable. I think that whether public financing is in the public interest differs  a case by case, and depending on whether it is theoretical or core research or whether it's applied research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

"Modern conservatism, of which modern christianity is a core part, is solidly against any science which challenges their beliefs, or causes them to reconsider their world view."

 

Moderen conservatism is not against science. Their are instances like the global waming debate in which we are skeptical based on the fact that we think it's "bad" science. We think that the proponetns have manipulated the math and have changed the goal posts. It's not that we challenge the scientific method is it that we view the "proof" of global warming" (or at least its extent and whether it's primarily the result of man made events) is sketchy at best.

 

And youve been told time and again that there is no manipulation of math. A vast majority of the scientific world agrees there is no manipulation of math. Yet you still fund studies, with blatantly manipulated math, that when peer reviewed are often thrown out.

 

You don't like the conclusion so you call fake news.

 

How many International organizations and national studies and scientific societies need to say "Global Warming is real" before you accept that the math isnt being manipulated? What do they have to gain from manipulating the math? The consensus in every scientific community not being directly funded by big oil is that Global Warming is a thing and we are contributing to it.

 

You know, since big oil has a direct fiscal interest in proving Global Warming isnt a thing.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yet you still fund studies, with blatantly manipulated math, that when peer reviewed are often thrown out."

 

So by your own words some of the studies are not "thown-out" when peer reviewed which logically leads to the conclusion that some of the studies actually support the assertions that Global warming is not a "thing"

 

"What do they have to gain from manipulating the math?"

 

 

THe scientific-governmental establishment have made their reputations on Global Warming claims. They receive billions of dollars in research stipends. Their tenure in Universitites and positions in government and international bodies are dependent on their reputations as Global Warming experts. Seems to me that they not only have a lot to gain by arguing for global warming but they have even more to lose by admitting that their assertions are overblown and not supported by the scientific facts.

 

 

"You know, since big oil has a direct fiscal interest in proving Global Warming isnt a thing."

 

And Global Warming alarmists do not have a direct fiscal and reputational interestin in proving that it is?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their tenures arnt dependent on global warming existing. They are environmental scientists. They study the environment. Including but not limited to Global Warming.

 

As for not being supported by scientific facts, how do you respond to peer review? Documents reviewed by everyone else and people say "Yeah, this was done well and followed good rules". You use it support your anti-global warming research, which yes some exists and is peer reviewed and accepted but that is a small small minority that at best downplays mans involvement in it instead of trying to disprove it entirely, yet you dismiss peer review when it supports Global Warming.

 

As for fiscal and reputational interests, no. I don't think you know how research works, atleast not in the university setting. Their reputation does not depend on their findings. Their tenure does not depend on their findings, heck if you have academic tenure they really can't fire you without very good cause. Infact the very purpose of academic tenure is that if someones research offends or the university disagrees with it, is that the researcher cant be fired. Thats why Tenure exists. For academic freedom.

 

For reputation, that depends on the quality of their report. If they found Global Warming didnt exist after the Government tasked them to research it, they would still get paid. Research asking "Is this a thing" has no specified return value. It's not the same as research towards the development of some specific product. Regardless of the answer to the question, the researchers still get paid and so long as their research is well documented, their reputations are unaffected.

 

Heck, typically with how grants work, you get paid before you start the research. The money is already yours.

 

Fact is, Global Warming exists, and the vast vast majority of the scientific community agrees on it around the world. But you think you know better than people with multiple PhDs in the subject, many of whom are tenured and cannot be fired regardless of their findings, so your going to ignore them. That is the very definition of arrogance.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for not being supported by scientific facts, how do you respond to peer review? Documents reviewed by everyone else and people say "Yeah, this was done well and followed good rules". You use it support your anti-global warming research, which yes some exists and is peer reviewed and accepted but that is a small small minority that at best downplays mans involvement in it instead of trying to disprove it entirely, yet you dismiss peer review when it supports Global Warming."

 

No I am pointing to the fallacy that you are forwarding: that their is no genuine scientific evidence and that their is no credible evidence against Global warming. 

 

If we are going to drasticly alter our economy and spend tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next few decades, I damn well want the reputable points made by those who have peer reviewed studies actually answered and refuted prior to spending any of that money. I also want at least credible evidence that such an effort and expenditure will actually fix the problem. Otherwise, even if you can prove that global warming is a scientific certainty I would still vote against such expenditures and drastic changes to our economy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 1:31 AM, CUBAREY said:

If we are going to drasticly alter our economy and spend tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next few decades, I damn well want the reputable points made by those who have peer reviewed studies actually answered and refuted prior to spending any of that money.

 

Can you list some of those points here?

 

On 7/7/2018 at 1:31 AM, CUBAREY said:

I also want at least credible evidence that such an effort and expenditure will actually fix the problem. Otherwise, even if you can prove that global warming is a scientific certainty I would still vote against such expenditures and drastic changes to our economy.  

 

Chemotherapy.

 

Its success rates are abysmally low compared to treatment options in other diseases, and horrendously expensive without medical insurance.

 

Still, when the alternative is death, most people choose to undergo chemotherapy.

 

Same thing for proposed solutions to climate change. The reason you don't believe in them is because you don't believe climate change will harm you. You're like a teenager who doesn't believe drugs and alcohol will kill him, who believes he will live forever, and thus keeps on partying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, solarz said:

 

Can you list some of those points here?

 

 

Chemotherapy.

 

Its success rates are abysmally low compared to treatment options in other diseases, and horrendously expensive without medical insurance.

 

Still, when the alternative is death, most people choose to undergo chemotherapy.

 

Same thing for proposed solutions to climate change. The reason you don't believe in them is because you don't believe climate change will harm you. You're like a teenager who doesn't believe drugs and alcohol will kill him, who believes he will live forever, and thus keeps on partying.

!. On points, suffice it to say that their are credible articles that point out that the results do not suggest that the models on which global climate change are particularly accurate, or actually measure what the proponents suggest they measure. 

2. Unlike chemotherapy the situation with climate change is quite different. According to the proponents the harm has already been done and climate change will occur. Changing out entire industrial/economic structure will not change that. In order to make a dent on percieved additional harm the perscription is to cut our economic development to the point that we would almost stop all use of flurocarbons  that would lead to a new Dark Age. 

 

Even if we take the predictions as totally true and correct the cost of any meaningful amelioration would be at least as dire to world poluplation and affluence as the worst of the predictions if we do nothing. I suggest that even if true it would be economicly and morally more efficient to amliorate for some of the worst outcomes that climate change will bring instead of attempting to prevent climate change.

 

Also the chemotherapy example is totally irrelevant. You use chemotherapy when all other possibilities are shown likely not to work. The key is that you first try all other alternatives and only when you have no other options will you use chemotherapy. If you apply the same to climate change, even if we take for granted the validity of the science it's not clear at all whether the suggested treatment is actually any better then the the "disease". Moreover, we have not even explored the possbilites of ameliorating the effects of climate change instead of attempting to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

On points, suffice it to say that their are credible articles that point out that the results do not suggest that the models on which global climate change are particularly accurate, or actually measure what the proponents suggest they measure. 

 

All that means is climate science is not perfect, just like all other science. It doesn't mean climate change isn't real, it just means we need to continue studying it.

 

18 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Unlike chemotherapy the situation with climate change is quite different. According to the proponents the harm has already been done and climate change will occur. Changing out entire industrial/economic structure will not change that. In order to make a dent on percieved additional harm the perscription is to cut our economic development to the point that we would almost stop all use of flurocarbons  that would lead to a new Dark Age. 

 

No, not true at all. Climate change can be slowed, and its effects mitigated, and nobody is saying we should revert to the Dark Ages. People disagree on specific policies, but that is still far better than claiming climate change doesn't exist.

 

18 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Even if we take the predictions as totally true and correct the cost of any meaningful amelioration would be at least as dire to world poluplation and affluence as the worst of the predictions if we do nothing. I suggest that even if true it would be economicly and morally more efficient to amliorate for some of the worst outcomes that climate change will bring instead of attempting to prevent climate change.

 

Again, the first part is not true at all.

 

For the second part, how do you propose to "ameliorate" rising sea levels drowning major coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles? How do you propose to "ameliorate" mass extinctions caused by runaway ocean acidification? How do you propose to "ameliorate" massive heat waves, typhoons, and other extreme weather events that will become more frequent as a result of climate change?

 

19 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Also the chemotherapy example is totally irrelevant. You use chemotherapy when all other possibilities are shown likely not to work. The key is that you first try all other alternatives and only when you have no other options will you use chemotherapy. If you apply the same to climate change, even if we take for granted the validity of the science it's not clear at all whether the suggested treatment is actually any better then the the "disease". Moreover, we have not even explored the possbilites of ameliorating the effects of climate change instead of attempting to prevent it.

 

We have weather models run on supercomputers that predict the effects of climate change using a range of parameters, from mild to extreme, so we DO KNOW what will happen if nothing is done. Do you think phasing out coal is more dire than the loss of the Great Barrier Reef? Do you think investigating in renewable energy is more dire than losing New York to the Atlantic Ocean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All that means is climate science is not perfect, just like all other science. It doesn't mean climate change isn't real, it just means we need to continue studying it."

 

Certainly, I have no objections about further research in fact I think that we definately should do much more research.  What I do object to is changing the entire structure of our economy and spending hundreds of trillions of dollars before we have a clear idea of the actual science, much less how any efforts we do will actually on balance serve to benefit society.

 

"No, not true at all. Climate change can be slowed, and its effects mitigated, and nobody is saying we should revert to the Dark Ages. People disagree on specific policies, but that is still far better than claiming climate change doesn't exist."

 

I do not claim that the climate is not changing, I simply do not buy that the change is man made, or that even if it is whether the strategies that have been put forward will do anything but redistribute wealth from the Developed world.

 

As for reverting to the Daark Ages, the only way to actually mitigate climate change that has been suggested is to drasticly cut use of fluro-carbon's since we are not willing to go the nuclear root the fact is that there are no alternatives today or any likely in the next several decades that would substitute for the use of carbon based energy sources. Which if we really try to mitigate climate change brings us back to the Dark Ages.

 

 

 

"For the second part, how do you propose to "ameliorate" rising sea levels drowning major coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles? "

 

Have you ever heard or seen what the Dutch have done to protect their territory. Also simpliest solution for some areas is to simply move. New Orleans for instance while a beautiful city (at least in part) is 15 feet below sea level. In history we have hundreds of examples of whole populations movig due to wheather issues and the rise and fall of great cities for the same reason. Why expect that the future should be any different.

 

 

"We have weather models run on supercomputers that predict the effects of climate change using a range of parameters, from mild to extreme, so we DO KNOW what will happen if nothing is done. Do you think phasing out coal is more dire than the loss of the Great Barrier Reef?"

 

At this time without any alternative but other fosil fuels, my answer would be a resounding yes. Also these great weather models you speak of haveover the last 30 years proven to not acutally have predicted the wheather very well. Again not saying that scientific research in the area is wrong or bad, but basing economic and social policy on a world wide bases for a hundred years or more on models that have proven time and again to be not very good at actually predicting long term weather is a rather stupid exercise in inefficiency if not insanety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanna say, I am Pro-Nuclear. Lets do it. Cut the coal, go nuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

 

 

 

"For the second part, how do you propose to "ameliorate" rising sea levels drowning major coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles? "

 

Have you ever heard or seen what the Dutch have done to protect their territory. Also simpliest solution for some areas is to simply move. New Orleans for instance while a beautiful city (at least in part) is 15 feet below sea level. In history we have hundreds of examples of whole populations movig due to wheather issues and the rise and fall of great cities for the same reason. Why expect that the future should be any different.

 

 

Along with +1 Lenlo on nuclear power...

 

I'm also 100% pro-moving people. Looking at flood (incl percipitation, servre storm and hurricane) insurance, yeah, there are definetly high-loss places we should not be living in. 

 

Or, from a government policy standpoint; the government should not be underwritting insurance in high-loss places. 

 

w/o the underwriting, no one could get a loan on a house, without loans, people will move.

(This policy, taken to extreme could be pushed to other government-backed insurance, but we'll let that slide for now)

 

The moral quantry is what to do with/about the people you are moving. Their houses will be worthless (unselable, uninsurable), so there would need to be a significant budget given to relocation. The limitmus there would be (cost of moving people out of high-risk areas < ?? > cost of continuing to underwrite those areas).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a beginning of a workable policy. Encourage nuclear power (which will still take 20 years or more to replace fosil fuels as our main energy source) and be realistic about the effects of flooding and rising sea levels.

 

"The moral quantry is what to do with/about the people you are moving. Their houses will be worthless (unselable, uninsurable), so there would need to be a significant budget given to relocation. The limitmus there would be (cost of moving people out of high-risk areas < ?? > cost of continuing to underwrite those areas)."

 

I do not think that would be necessary, Simply do not reinsure when a hurricane or flooding occurs. The homeowners effected would still get the value of their loss houses whether it's through private hurricane insurance or government flooding insurance but because the government would no longer insure their houses they would have to move to areas that are not so susceptible to flooding. In such case the amount that people would lose is the price of the land on which their homes are built. This tends to be a small part of the entire cost of a house except in very affluent areas like seashores and then well the rich will just have to lump it (they can of course take a loss credit on their income tax so the net effect will be rahter small).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now