6 ms·
That wasn't their point at all. The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into pr
by europeanNyan 3y ago
That wasn't their point at all.
The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future.
Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?
- Timon3 3y ago> The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future. It's usually easier to stop doing something than to deal with the consequences of doing something. > Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different? Humans have never faced this kind of change. It will be different because it's not just a different temperatures, it's the collapse of the ecosystem which we rely on for food.
- t0bia_s 3y agoHow do you know that?
- Timon3 3y agoHow do I know what? The earlier, the latter, both?
- t0bia_s 3y agoThat humans never faced this before and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.
- Timon3 3y ago> That humans never faced this before Can you point to any time during the existence of our species with a similar kind of change? > and it's collapse of whole ecosystem. That's mostly based on scientific studies, existing examples of rapid changes in ecosystems, and previous mass extinction events. Do you have any evidence counter to this idea?
- t0bia_s 3y agoThat's not evidence for your worlds or answer for my question.
- ajkjk 3y agoAll evidence points to it not being inevitable on the timescales it is happening on. On some timescale, obviously the planet melts from the sun. Doesn't mean we want it to melt soon.