3 ms·

> unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which th

by rtpg 7y ago

> unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which these guarantees can be delivered. The hard truth that makes this stuff even harder to convince is that, deep down, we know society will still function for those of us at the very top. Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power.

amanaplanacanal 7y ago
Yep. That's techno-optimism in a nutshell. All of us rich folks will be just fine, and the poor people will get screwed just like they always do.
KirinDave 7y ago
> we know society will still function for those of us at the very top Even this seems optimistic to me. It might coast along on inertia for a few decades but once food production and distribution ceases, "rich" gets redefined pretty quickly.
matthewdgreen 7y ago
"The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people." These are not even close to the worst-case climate scenarios. We don't have enough scientific evidence to ascertain whether the real worst-case scenarios are likely, so reputable scientists avoid talking about them, but we can't rule them out either.
jfim 7y ago
> Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. > The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power. This really depends on the amount of system damage done. Sure, at +1.5°C of global average temperature increase, you'll probably do fine. But at +15°C? What will wealth buy you?

by rtpg 7y ago

amanaplanacanal 7y ago

Yep. That's techno-optimism in a nutshell. All of us rich folks will be just fine, and the poor people will get screwed just like they always do.

KirinDave 7y ago

> we know society will still function for those of us at the very top Even this seems optimistic to me. It might coast along on inertia for a few decades but once food production and distribution ceases, "rich" gets redefined pretty quickly.

matthewdgreen 7y ago

"The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people." These are not even close to the worst-case climate scenarios. We don't have enough scientific evidence to ascertain whether the real worst-case scenarios are likely, so reputable scientists avoid talking about them, but we can't rule them out either.

jfim 7y ago

> Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. > The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power. This really depends on the amount of system damage done. Sure, at +1.5°C of global average temperature increase, you'll probably do fine. But at +15°C? What will wealth buy you?