←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
api_or_ipa ◴[] No.42733229[source]
Every era has it's Malthusian alarmists and without fail, each has been proven wrong by exactly the same thing the author decries and says won't work this time: technological change and adaption. There's no reason to think this time will be any different. Will some places become uninsurable? Sure, plenty of places over time have become uninsurable. Will the whole world became uninsurable? Absolutely not, because we are quite good at adaptation in the face of adversity.

The issue in California is not the price of insurance, it's availability because of extremely myopic ballot initiatives that are entirely political in nature. Should insurance be fairly priced, then the market can force people out of uninsurable areas and into areas with far less chance to burn.

replies(10): >>42733284 #>>42733296 #>>42733323 #>>42733356 #>>42733401 #>>42734178 #>>42734317 #>>42735488 #>>42735623 #>>42740933 #
forgotoldacc ◴[] No.42733401[source]
Thinking technology will always save us is no different from divine or magical thinking.

Lots of societies and civilizations have collapsed. Some were straight up wiped off the earth and we don't even know what happened to them. Western civilization has had a good 500 years, and America has had a good 250 years, but that doesn't mean things can never go bad in the future.

Plenty of places have had catastrophic droughts, famines, and plagues. Nearly half of Europe died a few times from plagues. Most natives in America were absolutely wiped out from disease and other issues. Tens of millions died of famine in China last century. Tsunamis washed away and killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia and Japan this current century.

In the past, the Krakatoa eruption messed with the climate around the world and made the sky dark. The Bronze Age Collapse is something we still don't understand but nearly wiped out everything in the western world. With population density higher than ever, disasters that match major historical ones would be far more destructive. It's really just been an unusually peaceful few decades in first world countries and people have gotten too comfortable.

replies(1): >>42734068 #
Daz1 ◴[] No.42734068[source]
>Plenty of places have had catastrophic droughts, famines, and plagues. Nearly half of Europe died a few times from plagues. Most natives in America were absolutely wiped out from disease and other issues. Tens of millions died of famine in China last century. Tsunamis washed away and killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia and Japan this current century.

Conveniently you selected pre-technology examples. How curious.

Meanwhile the impending global famine(s) - (plural) of the 20th century never came to be because captitalism kept pumping out agriscience improvements to improve crop yields to 10 times what they were in 1900.

replies(5): >>42734110 #>>42734191 #>>42734193 #>>42734502 #>>42734515 #
Sabinus ◴[] No.42734191[source]
Technology can't save you from famines when there isn't enough sunlight to grow crops for a season or two. One good supervolcano and civilization might collapse or at least take such a hit as to be utterly transformed. Billions dead, etc.
replies(1): >>42734296 #
lazide ◴[] No.42734296[source]
Literally grow lights and nuclear reactors? (Or plain old gas turbine generators)

Technology is the only thing that can save anyone from that type of situation. Prayer sure wouldn’t help!

replies(2): >>42734379 #>>42734743 #
1. Sabinus ◴[] No.42734379[source]
You think it's possible to put any decent percentage of our GLOBAL food production in greenhouses (remember with less light global temperatures go down) within ~6 months?

Billions would perish. If the luckier rich countries did not get nuked or invaded by armies or waves of endless starving refugees then they would be able to save a good amount of their population. At best world development goes back ~50-100 years. At worst, modern civilization basically ends from the combination of conflict and famine.

replies(1): >>42734858 #
2. lazide ◴[] No.42734858[source]
that doesn’t address the context of the response at all.

is technology helping, or hurting in that situation?

near as i can tell, it is the only thing that could help.

we aso have significant food stores and buffers, and if it was the situation you described it would literally be a ‘drop everything and get working’ emergency. we’d likely do better than you expect.

what else could possibly help besides technology?

But yes, a lot of people would die.