11–20 of 52 posts
what is the meaning of "too late"? the planet will survive, the organisms will adapt, humanity will die so what? maybe some amebas will evolve into something more peaceful that the savages we have become.
what is the meaning of "too late"? the planet will survive, the organisms will adapt, humanity will die so what? maybe some amebas will evolve into something more peaceful that the savages we have become.
Humanity won't die. Climate change is bad, but it's pretty well established that it's likely not a existential threat.
what is the meaning of "too late"? the planet will survive, the organisms will adapt, humanity will die so what? maybe some amebas will evolve into something more peaceful that the savages we have become.
what is the meaning of "too late"? the planet will survive, the organisms will adapt, humanity will die so what? maybe some amebas will evolve into something more peaceful that the savages we have become.
Good news is that this is extremely unlikely. Bad news is that survival of humanity isn't equivalent to survival of everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanity won't die. Climate change is bad, but it's pretty well established that it's likely not a existential threat.
Not trying to be obtuse but I'd be interested in your sources.
But from a common sense angle: the world can get a hell of a lot hotter before siberia is less habitable than arizona is now.
In reality? Absolutely.
People have clearly decided, with their wallets and at the ballot box, that climate change is less important than the economy.
Well, I can be carbon negative pretty easily. So just make everyone pony up for their carbon.
In a free market doing something bad for the planet while being able to avoid paying the cost of cleaning up is an advantage. Companies don't move operations to places with less strict emissions rules and fewer labor laws for fun - they do it to increase their profit. As soon as governments start making corporations really pay for carbon it'll give any country that wants to grow its economy a competitive advantage by giving corporations incorporated there a lower rate, or even making it free to pollute entirely.
Unless you can persuade consumers to avoid companies that pollute (virtually impossible because companies will greenwash what they're doing) or unless you can get all the governments on Earth to agree (virtually impossible because governments want to do what's best for them) then there is no answer.
Climate change cannot be stopped while capitalist profit and growth chasing are what drives people to do things.
Another option is an involuntary contraction caused by the effects of climate change, as fresh water supplies dwindle, soil erodes, and ecological collapse causes famine, war, and death. We are, say, 5% along this path.
In the worst case, technology can surely sustain at least a small human population indefinitely, even on a decimated planet Earth - dome living, and so forth. You know, the kinds of things we once imagined for settling distant planets. With any luck they will be scientists and engineers, working diligently to find a path back to our historical equilibrium that supported so much diverse life for so long. But that seems desperate, and hopeless, since achieving breakthroughs seems to require a certain population density and technology level.
What is striking to me is how reckless Americans are in consumption. Having lived in Germany a few years, I'm struck by how much more efficient and frugal life is there. Public transportation is easy and ubiquitous, healthcare is rational, simple, cheap, yet of high quality. "Stuff" is certainly more expensive, and you have fewer readily available options. People repair rather than replace. Many don't own a car. America could at least aim for something like that as part of a "voluntary contraction"! But I think we will continue to live recklessly, stuffing our bodies and homes and minds with junk until we die, bloated in every possible way, wondering why the world hates us for being free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to be obtuse but I'd be interested in your sources.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climat... links to some sources. But from a common sense angle: the world can get a hell of a lot hotter before siberia is less habitable than arizona is now.