• nature
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Don’t do it. Quit fighting nature. Move inland. Quit living in cities! Okay, I know no one is going to do any of this.

    • silence7OPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      San Francisco Bay is kind of unique; there are parts of it where geology and topography let you build levees and keep back the sea. One community, Alviso, is at ~13 feet below sea level due to land subsidence.

      I don’t expect people anywhere to stop living in cities; they’ve got enormous advantages in terms specialization letting people be more productive and therefore society as a whole live better.

        • silence7OPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s like paying rent; the landlord still owns the property, but it gets you the ability to to use it for a while.

          • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            People pay a landlord rent (most often) because they don’t have any other realistic options. In this case we do. The money is going to be spent regardless, why not spend it on something that is more long-term?

            • silence7OPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Because a century is longer than a lifetime. That’s enough for most people when it comes to a place to live

      • nature
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, but from an anthropologist view, cities (and specialization) have basically been the downfall of our species. I don’t know; I guess bolo’bolo mentioned some city-like places supported by farms. (and Çatalhöyük)