4 ms·
> It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy. it's still not the only one, even if it does > If you have a significant secondary i
by kitkat_new 3y ago
> It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy.
it's still not the only one, even if it does
> If you have a significant secondary issue, you should mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
- dundarious 3y agoPrimacy means it's the most significant issue. Of course it's not the only one. Prioritization matters to a huge degree, and climate change deserves prime position. Of course that are other resource constraint issues, but resolving the energy crisis resolves a large number of such issues, which again further reinforces the primacy of dealing with climate change. I can't think of a single resource crisis that could justify even approaching the priority of climate change, and just gesturing at every single resource limit on the planet doesn't convince me to change my thoughts on priority.
- kitkat_new 3y agoyou are arguing against a straw man. I say you can't just ignore everything besides co2 emissions. You argue for co2 emissions being the most important thing
- dundarious 3y agoThat's a pretty fair summary except I'd add it's the most important by a huge margin across many dimensions. There's definitely significant daylight between what we've written, but a lot of agreement too.