No. People always want some apocalyptic ending, but there’s always a chance to make adjustments in various ways. It’s just that some solutions, the ones that are less painful and involved less people’s lives getting destroyed and less death, some of those solutions become increasingly distant.
And look, if you go back and check out the history of unions and labor rights in the US, it was a bloody history. I think we might be looking at that repeating itself. And that’s only if we’re lucky.
No. People always want some apocalyptic ending, but there’s always a chance to make adjustments in various ways. It’s just that some solutions, the ones that are less painful and involved less people’s lives getting destroyed and less death, some of those solutions become increasingly distant.
And look, if you go back and check out the history of unions and labor rights in the US, it was a bloody history. I think we might be looking at that repeating itself. And that’s only if we’re lucky.
So what is your solution when we blow past 4 degrees © rise in temperature and most of the land on earth becomes uninhabitable? Shift all the farms up north which will die of freezes annually, or move all agriculture and life indoors permanently? Surely mining all the resources to put all of human life indoors will be a non issue? Or is it just the 5% that get indoors to survive and then the lower 90% of that 5 become the poor disadvantaged driven to be the new poor slowly? Or is your hope that the top 5% after killing most the world’s population once indoors will simply accept a form of socialism then?