4 ms·

Or more realistically business will go on as usual, with a little green-washing here and there, and we will cope as well as we can with the resulting mess. Wh

Or more realistically business will go on as usual, with a little green-washing here and there, and we will cope as well as we can with the resulting mess. Which means after a period of relative calm (less wars nowadays than before) we'll probably have climate/water exodus and wars in the future. But this will happen gradually.

xupybd 7y ago
My hope is all in climate engineering. Not because it's the best solution but because it's the only politically viable one. Not until we've felt the pain will we invest in solving the problem. Governments also have an easier time investing in massive infrastructure projects than curbing pollution. Will will be able to do anything at that point is not certain.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  At the moment the traditional ways of fighting carbon emissions seem to be more practicable... And who is going to pay for those infrastructure? Are the rich countries paying for them to be build in the poorer countries?
bayesian_horse 7y ago
Wars... may be slightly exaggerated. There are many causes of wars, and I am very conservative about identifying any big factors. Even when people say "it's about the religion" or "it's about democracy", it's really not, most of the time. To me it seems like it's mainly people fng up, internal politics, miscalculations and the sort. Invasions for the sake of conquering resources is increasingly rare. And illegal under international war (as much as that's worth). That's why the invasion of Crimea was such a big thing, these kind of things don't happen anymore. Also Ukraine miscalculated the risk of Russia taking Crimea (or was too paralyzed to prevent it) and Putin probably miscalculated the backlash. On a smaller scale it will be hard to tell why certain militias try to rule/conquer certain regions. Lack of resources may contribute, or not.

xupybd 7y ago

My hope is all in climate engineering. Not because it's the best solution but because it's the only politically viable one. Not until we've felt the pain will we invest in solving the problem. Governments also have an easier time investing in massive infrastructure projects than curbing pollution. Will will be able to do anything at that point is not certain.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
At the moment the traditional ways of fighting carbon emissions seem to be more practicable... And who is going to pay for those infrastructure? Are the rich countries paying for them to be build in the poorer countries?

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Wars... may be slightly exaggerated. There are many causes of wars, and I am very conservative about identifying any big factors. Even when people say "it's about the religion" or "it's about democracy", it's really not, most of the time. To me it seems like it's mainly people fng up, internal politics, miscalculations and the sort. Invasions for the sake of conquering resources is increasingly rare. And illegal under international war (as much as that's worth). That's why the invasion of Crimea was such a big thing, these kind of things don't happen anymore. Also Ukraine miscalculated the risk of Russia taking Crimea (or was too paralyzed to prevent it) and Putin probably miscalculated the backlash. On a smaller scale it will be hard to tell why certain militias try to rule/conquer certain regions. Lack of resources may contribute, or not.