We will not be at that point for many generations. Why bring it up at all?
It is one thing to be a good steward of resources. It's another to talk of disaster around the corner. Let's try to be more rational.
J
I wouldn't call 100 years "many generations". There's probably a couple of us on this site that will be alive to see the modern lifestyle put at risk if we don't shape up. Our grandchildren certainly will. Not everyone will die, we've obviously advanced past that point, but ideally I'd like to see cities remain on the land instead of being swallowed by the ocean, for mass climate migration to not need to happen, and for our ability to continue advancing to remain intact regardless of our wastefulness or resource consumption.
While you will certainly meet the hippies that recommend using your bath water for boiling your vegetables and to reuse the plastic grocery bag you got 20 years ago, the more serious figures in academia and climate science don't advocate for a severe reversion of our lifestyles. They advocate for developing technology and practices that negate the impact on the environment. Being wasteful with water, for example, is a nonfactor if your home is outfitted with a recycling system and the city water system receives modern overhauls. Eating a meat-heavy diet is a nonfactor if your meat is in-vitro instead of grown on a pasture. Leaving all your electronics on is a nonfactor if the energy being produced isn't from a finite resource.
You say to be rational when that is exactly what we're being. We're encouraging a switch over from dangerous practices that
will come back to bite us in the rear to practices that will be sustainable for centuries to come. Wind and solar is not going anywhere. If we can fight back against the stigma, nuclear is not going anywhere. Other methods of energy generation are being thought up of and tested as we speak all in the hope that we may not be dependent on natural gas, coal, oil, or another dirty form of energy in the future.
What do you envision happening once the climate crisis truly rears its head, Jay? Serious question. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the very worst that's coming in the future due to our abuse of the environment will just be a minor wallet hit and maybe a wee bit of an irregular winter/summer cycle. There are locations of the planet,
today, that are becoming uninhabitable or are seriously altering the local eco system. This will continue. Several coastal regions will cease to exist, people from across the planet will be forced into migrating across borders in a world where such a thing is a crime, and our use of finite resources is still increasing instead of decreasing when we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it's a
finite resource. We've poked holes in our ozone layer, polluted our oceans to the extent that we have a giant flotilla of trash in the Pacific, have destroyed a majority of our coral reefs to the point that we need to create artificial ones out of concrete and debris, and have such an extreme need for meat that it's becoming impossible to cultivate livestock in a humane manner due to the demand.
What do you think all this will culminate into, exactly? You seem cognizant that climate change is real, that we need to improve, but you don't seem to actually be in support of anything that actualizes either of those things. You seem to think we can do better, maybe, eventually. Not a big deal, though. Do you see it as a situation where you'll be dead when it matters so you don't have to care?
smileys on the entire internet to express my opinion of how this thread is not progressing anywhere sensible.
