My comment was directed to the GP's comment on top before it was deleted: I'm one of the "left" crowd, and I despise accelerationism in general as a concept, w

My comment was directed to the GP's comment on top before it was deleted: I'm one of the "left" crowd, and I despise accelerationism in general as a concept, which is what you've described (the GP). But over last decade I've come to understanding that specifically in fighting climate change it is unfortunately the only socially acceptable path. All the green efforts humanity does recently are very good, commendable and do help (a little). But globally all green tech combined does jack shit about actually slowing, or let alone reversing, climate change. It's like an oven in the process of heating up, and we all bicker and argue if the regulator should be lowered from 3 to 2 or to 2.5 setting. Guess what, both options will result in the oven heating up to the maximum possible temperature. Politicians boast about lowering "emissions", a parameter which is impossible to measure by definition, only model and estimate. While all hard direct measurements of temperature or of CO2 show rapid and currently accelerating rise of change. Humanity has two choices - either rush industrialization and technology in hopes of maybe start fighting climate change (in reality this time, not in promises) in 100-200 years and salvage whatever ecosystem will manage to accidentally survive. Or we do nothing, and then all ecosystem along with us will perish in droughts, famine and wars. Third path of collectively working on real climate change solutions has been rejected by all collective humanity, so I'm not considering it. Unfortunately it was a tragedy of commons, just on planet scale, and we all lost.