No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward.
Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.
The response I’ve heard to this, which I tend to agree with, is that even if it’s not completely stopped, maybe some action will mean it won’t be as bad. 120F is bad, maybe instead of throwing up our hands and letting it get to 140F, we can head it off at 130F. Still not good, but better than the alternative. And for each bit we avoid, we get a lot of additional livable area. If we start seeing migrations of people, that extra land is going matter a lot.
You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.
Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control
Mass death means less for everyone. No one praying to the alter of capitalism should want mass death. Fewer consumers means fewer sales, which means lower profits and an economy that contracts…. So their resources go down.
kinda late even if they did now 😔
No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward. Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.
Totally correct. We live now, act now. The future remains not determined, but damn right paths and options are rapidly closing.
Probably something like an inhabitable band will form over continents; the US southwest and south gulf, for instance.
All humans won’t die. That’s silly. But very many can, and the rest, degraded.
The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze
The response I’ve heard to this, which I tend to agree with, is that even if it’s not completely stopped, maybe some action will mean it won’t be as bad. 120F is bad, maybe instead of throwing up our hands and letting it get to 140F, we can head it off at 130F. Still not good, but better than the alternative. And for each bit we avoid, we get a lot of additional livable area. If we start seeing migrations of people, that extra land is going matter a lot.
You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.
Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control
Mass death means less for everyone. No one praying to the alter of capitalism should want mass death. Fewer consumers means fewer sales, which means lower profits and an economy that contracts…. So their resources go down.
I don’t think you completely got the gist of my comment.
Mass death will also slow down global climate change.
Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.