3 ms·

So the argument is that the probability of humanity achieving galactic sustainability is independent of humanity achieving local near term sustainability? This

• dotsam 5y ago
  Climate change is likely to result in appalling tragedies of widespread suffering, but it is perhaps less likely to result in the permanent and total collapse of human civilisation. To that extent, it is locally sustainable (but at a grotesque cost). I don't think the argument is to not do anything about climate change. It is to continue to work with urgency to tackle climate change _and_ to do something appropriate about risks that could wipe out civilisation completely, where we have reason to believe our actions could to some degree mitigate the risks.