Why did the Southeastern US's population grow much faster than the interior South's?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#21
Daughter kicked her husband out and she, two sons and I moved to scenic Tarkington. They are about 45 minutes apart. Like most of the coast areas along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, they do not drain. I grew up in Lake Charles, LA and most of my adult life in Sulphur, LA.

Pruitt
Maybe you should change your location on your profile then. :)

The most common trend in human history is people living near oceans and rivers where there were ports(food and water, access to trade etc). It's why America's coasts are so densely populated while our interior is so empty. It's starting to change a little now but that's cause increases in technology(whether it be the industrial one or the technological one) make the distinction between living on the water and living inland more irrelevant(take Chicago in the 20th century versus Chicago in the 19th century). The coasts still have massive built in advantages from those centuries and millenia of humanity setting up places that way.

It's one of the reasons sea level rise from climate change is such a threat wouldn't cover most of the Earth's surface but the area it would cover just happens to be the area where the earth's people have always predominantly lived.
Is there any way to influence climate change to prevent sea levels from significantly rising?
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
#22
Maybe you should change your location on your profile then. :)


Is there any way to influence climate change to prevent sea levels from significantly rising?
I'm not certain of the specifics to be honest. More inclined to think we are better suited to block off the sea rise with more advanced dams and levees and seawalls than prevent the rise. Think that's one of the most unavoidable things about the crisis. Possible some of the out of box thinking can change that but I'm not holding my breath cause I've gotten the sense most time scientists(who believe, not deniers) tell you something optimistic about the timetable for dealing with climate change they don't actually believe it. My biology professors straight said that and Robert Ballard(the guy who found the Titanic) did as well. I don't know others believe that but the more of said people I interact with the more I get that sense it's an unspoken thing they mostly all agree on. Kind of like not telling the Titanic's passengers ships' sinking(I love my Titanic references) while at the same time dutifully doing all they can.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#23
How effective do you think that advanced dams, levees, and seawalls are going to be in mitigating the event of climate change on rising sea levels?

Also, as a side note, do you think that we'd have had a more severe global warming problem right now had Russia and China not descended into Communism and thus would have had more CO2 emissions right now?
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
#24
How effective do you think that advanced dams, levees, and seawalls are going to be in mitigating the event of climate change on rising sea levels?

Also, as a side note, do you think that we'd have had a more severe global warming problem right now had Russia and China not descended into Communism and thus would have had more CO2 emissions right now?
I have no idea not an expert at all. Only know that cities like New Orleans and Venice were built in very untenable positions in the past. However Katrina and incidents like that show that regardless of technological innovations all it takes is some incompetence or carelessness which decades of things being fine is more and more likely to produce. Also with climate change we will be getting more and more of said incidents not less and less.

Well important to note that Communism(attempted or real) doesn't equal not having more carbon emissions, it's a the way economy is set up, doesn't take businesses out of commission, they just are wrong and the wealth from them distributed differently. Communism requires industrialization and Stalin's five year plans were towards the end of artificially creating industrialization which Communism acknowledges Capitalism is the best way to induce. Communism/Socialism/Capitalism are economic systems and do not require less or more emissions. The issue with Capitalism as it relates to carbon is people in the industries that burn have a vested interest in those emissions continuing and against their alternatives but that applies to the US and maybe in the past a few other countries, it's irrelevant to China and Russia. But capitalism in theory should be irrelevant to the climate solution, in theory, obviously it isn't at least in the US. China right now is industrializing.

If Russia isn't as industrialized as the rest of the Western world this is a problem they've had in literally every economic/political system they've had. They also aren't China and have a shrinking population(super long term Hitler sort of did win the Eastern front, the demographic impact of that campaign is still being felt) on gigantic chunk of the earth's land.
 
Likes: Futurist