You are receiving this email because you are a subscriber to Charles Hugh Smith / Of Two Minds.
    • koper@feddit.nlEnglish
      0·
      1 day ago

      Sure, but that doesn’t fix any of the problems that this article highlights. Large areas of the globe are becoming unhabitable and yet the current policy is to keep people there through subsidies and legal threats for insurance companies instead of actual prevention and mitigation. Basically burying the head in the sand while everyone else is paying the price.

      To quote the article:

      If rebuilding a house destroyed in a “100 year flood” once made sense, now that there’s a “100 year flood” every five years, rebuilding in that locale no longer makes sense. So why should taxpayers absorb the costs of this selective blindness to the realities of rising global risks?

      Solidarity and collectivization of risk is essential for things like healthcare, where your risk is almost entirely depending on luck. But for home disaster insurance, it depends much more kn where and how you choose to build. It then makes little sense why living in particularly dangerous areas should be subsidized. That money should rather go towards climate adaptation.

  • WillWorkForCroissant@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    As I’ve noted previously, diesel-fueled robots can roam the field zapping weeds with lasers, but what’s the point of that technology if there’s no rain or high winds and heavy rain destroyed the harvest? That there are limits on our technological powers is also taboo. Diesel doesn’t deliver the right amount of rain, and neither does AI.