Innovation and burning fossil fuel are not synonymous. Obviously having plenty of available energy is what allowed us to reach this point but we are long past t

Innovation and burning fossil fuel are not synonymous. Obviously having plenty of available energy is what allowed us to reach this point but we are long past the time when we couldn’t do anything without burning coal or using oil. We have clean energy sources. Alternative are already there for the most polluting usage: nuclear power, wind and solar, electric propulsion. You are stuck thirty years in the past and arguing for us to go further back. > Are you sure about that? Of course I’m sure about that. Production has been above demand for decades. The issue is instability and logistic. We have the technical means to feed everyone and hunger affects an infinitely smaller proportion of the world than 200 years ago (population was multiplied by 8 since 1800). > The choice is to be realistic and prepare for what's coming VS continuing business as usual No one is advocating for continuing business as usual. Some are advocating strongly for curbing everyone freedom and accepting making everyone life worse to conform to their moral standards. Others want to actually tackle the problem like we have done for every other one: by working on finding and developing appropriate solutions which clearly do exist. > All fun an games until bacteria started becoming antibiotic resistant It’s still fun and game. The issue is broad antibiotic use in farming and poor economic return for companies working on antibiotic and despite that we still have effective cure.