3 ms·
>Potentially set the stage for conflict. I sincerely hope this idea becomes politically incorrect. There is huge potential for conflict with resources either b
by wallace_f 9y ago
>Potentially set the stage for conflict.
I sincerely hope this idea becomes politically incorrect. There is huge potential for conflict with resources either becoming scarcer, or at least industry and agriculture needing to at least reorganize. Further, Russia is probably the only country to significantly gain from it. However, I don't want a "holy war" over global warming because that won't solve global warming. It will just create war, just as all our wars after WWII have done nothing but that.
- swombat 9y agoI read StudentStuff’s post as implying it will set the stage for conflict over resources, not over ideology.
- wallace_f 9y agoIn today's world, it will always be about resources, and painted with ideology, no matter how ridiculous that ideology. Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, painted with a War on Terror, but people in the USA are orders of magnitude more likely to die from police shootings, sugar, lack of access to healthcare, etc. The ideology comes in when selling the war to the 99%. The resources are for the 1%. That's why we should stop speaking of conflict over global warming. It won't solve global warming, and it won't help most people.