The answer is almost always with collective action. As an individual, our impact or non-impact is very limited. Even if your individual consumption and impact t

The answer is almost always with collective action. As an individual, our impact or non-impact is very limited. Even if your individual consumption and impact turned to 0, in a world of 7.9 billion other individuals. It's a big tragedy of the commons; this time, only coordination can save us. A shared responsibility. (practically) Everyone, and specially our leaders, need to be on the same page. Disasters will come all at once... we're depleting most minerals as well, pollution will only get worse, and so on. For the lack of a better word, this is Nature's ""test"" to see if we have the ability to 1) Think on a global and collective level; 2) Value the future and not just the immediate present. The default mode of the test is failure, and we seem quite likely to fail anyways. We have to fight very hard. I do believe if we could reach some kind of consensus and mutual enlightenment the technical and social challenge is not that frightening, and maybe we even have a good chance to become a proper space-faring civilization. It's important to be hopeful. A thousand years of a sustainable high technology civilization can achieve what might be approaching the limits of physics of our Universe -- and I'm quite confident colonizing even the galaxy is feasible in such a scenario. The classic on this topic is Scott Alexander's: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ My personal (idealistic, why not? ;) ) plan, my contribution, is to try to come up with a shared formalization of ethics most cultures/countries would accept (a sort of new version of human rights), which includes obvious stuff like valuing human life experience (and in general consciousness) as a primary target of our civilization. Recognizing we are all conscious individuals and so strict individualism is a silly, destructive paradigm, that truth can be well approximated and we can reason collectively towards a shared goal. I really want to prove it -- prove that significant divergences from such basic ethical systems are catastrophic or absurd -- thus we should all, regardless of other beliefs (or religions, or tastes), accept the basic premises and thus have a chance to not only survive, but to live well, to thrive. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/comments/ramgij/the_natural_inefficiency_of_consciousness_and_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/comments/ramgij/the_nat...