Someone said that it's because we humans are very good at reacting at immediate danger and very bad at reacting at risks building up slowly.
I don't know if it is true, but by today still voting for parties denying climate change all the way and that have done nothing in past years to prevent this type of risks is crazy.
As a friend says, "Our collective cognitive dissonance is something I would not want to climb with a bike."
We failed.
Cutting down on annual emissions will not be accompanied by reduction in atmospheric CO2, unless the current rate of emission is lower than that of natural processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
That's why atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, despite cuts, if the cuts at global scale are at all real.
Enough cheap energy (that doesn't produce CO2) and some incentive and you could have CO2 slowly removed.
Like in Critical Mass by Daniel Suarez.
Of course the free energy would instantly allow us to eliminate a huge amount of emissions but that's not really relevant to the point. All the concrete for the tens of thousands of facilities would add up a good amount of additional CO2 to scrub as well.
I have a tiny lithium battery on a desk in my lab that started swelling about a week ago. I've been meaning to go to the recycle place every day since then to drop it off, but nothing exploded yet, so here I sit with a slightly swollen battery some meters away from me.
I'd say you're just about right :)
So like many other boogeymen, driving to work is still far more dangerous. Back of the napkin shows about 100x more likely to die in a car crash than experience a battery incident in any given year.
The other thing to do is discharge it, so it has little energy stored to maintain/enlarge a fire
A drone engineer I worked with would immediately put any suspect battery into a barrel of water for several days, then get them disposed of properly.
The risk really seems trivial, probably because of our extensive experience with ordinary alkaline and NiCad batteries with a very benign degradation pattern, but the risk with Li-Ion is no joke.
All your fire extinguishers will do you no good if it goes off while you are out of the house. Also, the fire extinguishers will only suppress the surrounding fire, and do nothing about the core Li-Ion fire itself.
Very applicable example for the thread!
Humans are really good at stealing, lying, beating their wives and all sorts of other bad shit too but you don't see people going around saying "aw shucks, it's just nature, whatcha gonna do". One of the benefits of society is to tame human nature in such a way that we all benefit more than we lose and those benefits let us outcompete the adjacent society whether that's the cavemen or a nation state.
Whichever society figures out how to marginalize the voice of the unprincipled, the emotional, those who lie with plausible deniability for their own (often not even financial, just in their own damn head) self interest and overall detriment will mop the floor with the rest of them.
This month a 'hunger stone' appeared in the Danube, indicating the levels for pre-20th century famine.
And various other markers in many countries for 'the water reached this level', ironically, on the side of existing buildings.
Yet we build closer and closer to rivers because (flash) flood events happen rarely, and typically not in our lifetime.
That's changing. Even though I'm 64, I suspect that I'll be seeing a lot of "not in my lifetime" stuff happening, before I pop my clogs.
Last major volcanic eruption around lots of humans: Krakatoa - 1883 Last major M9 earthquake before Sumatra: Chile - 1960
and so on. Things seem a bit more 'major' now because there's 7bn+ people.
Aleksey Yurchak coined a term Hupernormalisation and it works here too.
We know the reality, yet leaders keep telling us via TV, social media... that everything is fine.
We know that they know that we know.
Fake world? Matrix? Escape from the freedom?
From wiki:
It argues that following the global economic crises of the 1970s, governments, financiers and technological utopians gave up on trying to shape the complex "real world" and instead established a simpler "fake world" for the benefit of multi-national corporations that is kept stable by neoliberal governments
So I don't think it'a new thing, but maybe it's getting worse
The century of the self must be recommended also.
How else will they make easy money from illegal and unsafe constructions.
There is always the "it was the will of god" excuse.
This will continue till we wisen up and elect the right people, select the right people.
This is part of the problem:
The problem is not necessarily democracy, but rather the insight the lack of bandwidth in voting ballots. A few bits every 4 years or whatever? Contrast this with the rate of modification in the law of a jurisdiction. Define the "democratic grade" as the ratio of binding democratic input in bits/per year to the changes in the binding law in bits/per year.
The problems aren't the concepts of democracy, but that humanity was sold a muzzle with a nameplate stating "democracy".
One may argue that it was necessary in the era where most democracies were initiated, until large enough fractions of the population become educated, but justified or not, its hard to defend today.
Every time you spread the message that we just need to "vote right" you too are in a novel way a part of the problem.
Low probability but high impact hazards, those are the toughest to deal with at society scale.
We just need to be better. All anyone can do is be a bit better everyday. It's a monumental, hard task that we all just need to do.
This is how society gets better. We have come a long way. We have a long way to go. We can't "design" our way out of simply being better people.
My hunch is there are honest and reasonably competent people but who don't desire such positions.
Perhaps it is time to try sortition at scale.
I was just a while ago writing elsewhere (sorry, not totally on topic):
"But now almost everyone has figured out what the signs of the corruption are so we can spot the ones getting ill from the power and remove them.
I was joking that we (Finland) could sacrifice a island f Åland to be a Matrix for the power corrupted elite. We can simulate plenty of virtual sycophants fro them to be perfectly happy narcissists while isolated from doing us harm.
And I'm happy to volunteer to train as a therapist, should someone want to get better!
The golden rule and its formulations is pretty damn good litmus test for checking the level of corruption. If you're deep enough this will create a rage reaction. Think of Trump when someone talks about empathy or standard deviation. He will get hostile as he doesn't understand what the aliens around him are talking about.
I referred to the moral development with the lollipop and the levels are:
Pre-conventional (narcissist level in childhood or later in life regression by trauma, addiction or ...) Conventional (the sheep level that understands moral based on what others do around - google banality of evil if you don't know this) Post-conventional is the level where we do the golden rule thinking.
Most of us are in the conventional in action, BUT can understand the golden rule and that's enough. Have the decision makers reflect on some, even mundane, issues on the basis of "what if all 8 billion of us did this" and you'll get a short sircuit or division by zero, if the capability has regressed or never developed. These are no evil people by no means, but in most cases ones that have not had a healthy people around them. Either as a child or later on. We just know where we're going to end up should we not remove them from the power. Whether the society is powered by communism, or capitalism, or whateverism the outcome is the same if we don't figure out a way for this.
We cannot allow replacement via "good great leaders" as the power itself also creates the regression, just like addiction or trauma. So if I'm seemingly moral now and you'll select me as the great spagetti leader that dictates over the world and other puny religions, eventually I will corrupt by the admiration. And so will you.
The predicament of the human race is IMO decided by the fact that do we dare to start talking about this human trait honestly :D Sorry a long rant, now I'll shut up!"
So thanks for a question I had an answer almost available!
"Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere And build them a home, a little place of their own The Fletcher Memorial Home For Incurable Tyrants and Kings" ... "They can polish their medals and sharpen their smiles, And abuse themselves playing games for a while Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead"
-- "The Fletcher Memorial Home" by Pink Floyd
My disagreements are about how he treated the band.
The other issue is that the machinery is not 1 person but 10s or 100s of 1000s of people who are actually doing the work you want to do. There is a difference between "£10M will sort out that hospital easily" and going through the machine ends up making that cost more like £100M not just "corruption" although there will be some but also massive inefficiency, lack of agency for people to make things happen without having 100 meetings to agree it and then having the government change their mind and throw the whole thing in the trash.
Devolving decisions to local government helps to a point but some things have to be managed centrally, which is where the bureaucracy is at its worst.
https://deming.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/inconvienent-t...
On the other hand, there's also a market for generating outrage and panic, sometimes justified, sometimes not.
So not the best metric for what majority of people want.
Also the wants are manufactured in many parts.
The entire Himalayan foothills area (which includes what, at least 6 different major countries off the top of my head) are potentially impacted by something like this.
Most of these areas are barely surviving, and extremely poor, and often very disconnected from the rest of the country due to the terrain.
Realistically, what do you think they could have done?
Use science based zoning and not build or populate known hazardous areas.
Depending on the scale one could incentivized people to move to safer areas.
incentivize.
talking about
There are only a handful of areas on the planet without known disaster exposure risk. Maybe zero, really.
Zoning is not an all or nothing.
There is a lot of land that does not have such extreme dangers. Of course, some countries have it worse than others. Japan would be one such. Good or bad, the population has been on the decline there for unrelated reasons.
For earthquakes this is what my country looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India
This is at a very broad resolution. One can refine to make this more local. Earthquakes are just one type of hazard. One has to take other hazards into account.
But not considering why people build communities in valleys.
More geography and less policy knowledge is required
Regulations (for example, you cannot build unless and insurer is willing to insure your property against known local hazards) and enforcing the regulations can make that happen. Often we move in the other direction by adopting policies that encourages mispricing.
Insurers? Building code enforcement? Are you for real?
Since you are making this personal I am not going to respond to you any further. Sorry.
I can only guess why you have got worked up.
don’t forget major earthquakes (most of California and the entire Pacific Rim, to name some well known areas), floods, serious droughts, tornados, hurricanes/cyclones, fires, subsidence (into the ocean or sinkholes), volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and lahars.
It’s about frequency and preparation, but it’s never perfectly safe. No building code handles everything, it’s impossible. Hazards are somewhat mitigated or ignored, not entirely dealt with.
I am not sure where you are getting "all or nothing" in my comments. If you are interested, you can read my other comments on this story to get perhaps a fuller picture of my position.
I understand my comments have worked you up, but I am not sure why. If you have lost people in this incident, I am genuinely sorry for your loss and can understand emotional outbursts. If you have dear ones engaged in practices that I am disapproving of, well, then in that case too I can understand your displeasure.
If you thought that I am claiming that adhering to my position will ensure that future death tolls would magically become zero then that's uncharitable reading.
My position is quite simple, price in the hazards based on scientific hazard assessment. Enforce policies that encourages correct pricing, rather than part take in corrupt practices that encourages mispricing of the kind that benefits the political class and builder class nexus that operate from the safety of being out of range.
This can be done through regulations. For example, we have mandatory third party accident insurance for vehicles. That's an example of a regulation that encourages pricing in the hazards.
Hazard zoning is not all or nothing of the type (a) permitted and (b) not permitted. It is about assigning areas to different grades of quantized hazards. See my other comment for example of such zoning for Earthquake hazard.
With hazard priced in, the markets would mostly take care of where to build new homes and what kinds to build.
In Himalayan states of India we have the opposite going on. Politicians, in concert with the enforcement bodies that are peopled by their flunkies, encourage illegal constructions in known hazardous areas, deregulates zoning so that dangerous areas are cheaper to own property on in exchange of kickbacks from the builders.
> don’t forget major earthquakes ...
I am not forgetting that for sure but not sure what your point is. If it's -- look here are other dangerously built up areas in the US -- then yes I agree.
There was corruption involved in managing the levies that were supposed to protect New Orleans too.
> or stop bs’ing
And yes there is no need to be rude. It does not make your point stronger.
In theory? Sure.
In reality? Lulz
On the otherhand I live here, with large part of my childhood in an earthquake hazard zone, the highest in fact. If you have lived here and know your high school geography you would be well equipped to guess where.
I am not sure I hear any constructive suggestions from you other than lulz. Unfortunately that's not going to make a difference.
In any case, since this has devolved into personal insults. I recuse myself from a wrestling bout in the mud, sorry about denying the pleasure.
The ultra narrow valley surrounded by steep walls should set off one's self preservation senses.
It did when I saw the first video from this disaster. Normally you don't hang out too long in a couloir.
When the political class are questioned they utter inanities like people should be grateful that God Ganga maia waters have come to bless their lands and homes.
It is a racket. This will continue till we start electing people who respect the scientific methods and their conclusions.
Yes and that is broadly the safe option. One can build on geological stable high grounds. They are rather and more difficult to build on. We know what happens when we don't.
> Sure, politicians and contractors could do better
It's not mistake of the "oops a typo" variety.
They are knowingly making a freakton of money by endangering the people who ought to know better. I agree sometimes the poor might not have viable alternatives that they can fund with their own bank balance but it seems this is where the governments should step in to fund alternatives. But why do that when there is easy money to be made.
Nepal is literally between rock and a hard place. But in my country, India, there is plenty of this kind of corruption going on.
EDIT:
> I wager that the wealth of those cronies doesn't come close to my western living standards, so who am I to judge?
They are in no way implicated in this particular case but corruption in India can pay very handsomely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Adani#Career
Lookup his brother too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautam_Adani#Career (read the second half closely)
The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future is not priced in (make insurance mandatory?) and because of acts of corruption that actively promote/incentivize development in hazardous areas by rewriting zoning, repricing permits, rewriting saner policies.
Hard to build on the mountain, and the valley has transportation, easier to build, fertile land, food and water.
It’s very obvious why humans settle where they do (despite the risks).
Brought up there.
Every five or ten generations, different risk.
BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.
No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position.
My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks.
In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position.
Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.
Why do they have to be “moved”? They are perfectly capable of moving themselves as I can attest to seeing them flooding into my country by the thousands. “The people” make their own choices.
But these people who want to make a buck building garbage somewhere it won't last are largely counterbalanced by the equal and opposite people who seek to financially benefit at society's expense by harnessing the screeching of the useful idiots to get sprinkler systems mandated in garden sheds and mail order carports require engineered plans.
They're basically two sides of the same "slimy people who'll lie for a buck" coin.
For example, there were recent floods, is a location were previous governments had not developed. Now the current government rather than taking accountability are claiming that affected houses should be grateful that they have been touched by the river god.
Difficult to believe, but some people fall for the propaganda.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/kiratpur...
https://citizenmatters.in/shimla-illegal-construction-urbani...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/shimla/muck-in-rive...
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/himachal-pradesh/supr...
The way I justify it in my mind is that, by all accounts, there's never been a global civilization of any kind on this planet before. Especially not one with sentient primates connected by instant telecommunications and powered by capitalism. There is no existence proof that this can work. So when it seems like it is failing, I take solace in that maybe it's not even possible.
I'm really not sure if any combination of political and economic systems could have avoided the mess we find ourselves in. Capitalism and free enterprise powered by fossil fuels does seem like it strapped a booster rocket to our inherent greed and inability to live in balance with our surrounding ecosystems, and now we've got an unhealthy combination of massive momentum and no political will to redirect human development towards sustainability. It's going to be chaos because global civilization seems to be uncontrollable and voracious. So, buckle up?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/kiratpur...
https://citizenmatters.in/shimla-illegal-construction-urbani...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/shimla/muck-in-rive...
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/himachal-pradesh/supr...
"Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill that deletes climate change from state law" <https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desant...> (2024)
"North Carolina Literally Passed Laws Against Science on Sea-Level Rises" <https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-t-outlaw-hurricanes-how...> (2018)
We had floods in Sikkim, which is practically a "stone throw" away from a world-level map point of view. I was there then. There was past research but everyone was so surprised. Activists talking about that event 10 years prior. Published reports.
Yet, we do nothing to move people away. To pause and think what the hell is going wrong. Just keep hustling and pretend shit is not going to go wrong. I am tired of our* culture.
our: all of us, I am not only talking about India, Nepal or China here.