> We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fas

> We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. Every one of these has immediate consequences. How many laws exist that are about consequences in the mid to far future? Immediate consequences are obvious, but far future consequences are highly debatable especially considering we don't know what tech will exist in the future. > complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies. Why not put the responsibilities on corporations? They're the ones doing the most pollution on almost every scale. People just buy/use what is available. Individual action isn't even needed, only corporate action, and they seem to be the ones pushing for political changes the most. It should be a battle fought at the large corporation levels, and if they just remove services and provide new ones, there's nothing the average person can do. Instead we see them funding political movements that would result in corporations having more control over the individual at the population scale. Meanwhile they have virtually zero accountability from government. My point here, is that it shouldn't matter what people believe. Maybe scientists should push for corporations to change, and for government to hold them accountable for things they have already done. This would have nothing to do with believing the science.