7 ms·
And what if the cost of not doing that is also "astronomical"? Billions of people need to eat, work, raise their families. Somewhere between mass starvation/war
by goatlover 6y ago
And what if the cost of not doing that is also "astronomical"? Billions of people need to eat, work, raise their families. Somewhere between mass starvation/war and environmental destruction is a cost less than "astronomical" which people are willing to pay. It has to be realistic or it won't happen.
- pii 6y agoIt seems like you might be missing part of this discussion: with widespread environmental collapse as described -- irreversible decline -- humanity faces extinction, regardless of the number of jobs in the economy.
- goatlover 6y agoYes, but unrealistic measures won't motivate people to make the necessary changes. There are costs people will pay and ones they won't. You're not going to care much about the future if your kids go hungry now because there are no jobs. Particularly when it's based on a future prediction that might turn out differently.