NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5291523" data-attributes="member: 7883">Yes, I'm familiar with that.  What I was asking was simply about the straight facts of whether particular areas would experience flooding.  Like, if an inland city, 3000km from the ocean, but on the side of a river, and hence only 60m above sea level would itself be 20m under water if the sea levels rose by 80m.Sorry for not making my question more clear.I definitely understand that such a scenario would have disastrous effects from an environmental and financial standpoint.  We'd be crowding a lot of people into a smaller amount of arable terrain, among other things, and plenty of the places in the middle of North America are rather arid and dry, and, from what I understand, don't really have the potable water reserves to support the increased population levels they would have.However.....I'm also not of the opinion that such a disaster is irrecoverable.  The planet is very resilient.  And life is very tenacious.  Even if, in the (geologically tiny scale) 2 million years following a disaster like that and a collapse of the ecosystem, the planet was not very well adapted for life with homo sapiens and current life forms, the survivors would adapt, and eventually flourish.  Of course, tough luck for humans, but that's evolution.Earth's had disaster's wiping out 50-80% of life on the planet, and the result is often a boom in evolution and diversity after the fact.  Of course, if you're a species living right *before* the disaster, it sucks to be you.......but if you're alive *after* the disaster, there's tonnes of opportunity.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification