> Because the immediate...effects will be overwhelming bad. There's just no chance we will end with a climate that is better than the one we optimized the hell

> Because the immediate...effects will be overwhelming bad. There's just no chance we will end with a climate that is better than the one we optimized the hell for. There will be almost no positive effect on that horizon, that's how extreme optimization works. [Emphasis added] This just seems like dogma to me. Of course there will be both negative and positive effects. The question is: which is greater? Suppose I "optimize" my life for $60K/year income, but suddenly get a job which pays me $80K/year but with longer work hours and less interesting work. Question: Is my life definitely worse because my current optimization will be disrupted? The answer is that it's completely unclear. $20K more per year is good; less interesting work is bad. We need better models of what we're going to do with the money, and exactly how less interesting our work is going to be. W.r.t. to global warming: some of our existing "optimizations" will no longer be necessary, since life will just be easier in certain ways (e.g., more crops and ecnomic opportunities in the northern regions which currently make human living very hard). Some of our existing "optimizations" will fail, and need to be adjusted (e.g., areas where the sea line is expected to rise). The question is: why think "there's just no chance" (<- your words, not mine) that we're going to be net better off in the long-term?