4 ms·

What is your position, then - simply fatalism? You don't seem to be disagreeing with the author's premises, or his conclusions. Even if the situation does turn

• netsharc 4y ago
  I'm not the above commenter, but I subscribe to the fatalism... even with a deadly disease that could (for a small sub-percent of "could") kill you within 2 weeks, people got into denial as one of the excuses why they shouldn't follow what society wanted them to do.
• AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  "Your solution doesn't work" != "I have a solution that works". I don't have to have a solution that works to be able to point out that your solution doesn't work. Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism. If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• mdp2021 4y ago
  > Better to try Who is supposed to «try», and what? The issue can only be resolved (in terms of political intervention) by a sound, sensible plan acceptable by enough parts. You want to fix the problem, you have to facilitate that somebody formulates a proposal that enough governments will be available to subscribe to. No, the fear of annihilation is factually not enough to convince a policymaker - first, guts to head, because of ethology, and second, because of game theory. "Ethology" being a well-dressed encapsulation for "that's how it is - see and evaluate", and "game theory" implying that for a player not to grab the loot a number of reassurances must be in place.