Doomerism encourages apathy and helplessness. I don’t agree with resigning ourselves that the situation is unfixable. Every .1 degrees we can shave off is worth fighting tooth and nail for. As far as whether humanity as a whole is sustainable indefinitely, I don’t buy it. Even if we run out of rare earth metals 1000 years from now that’s 1000 years we have to fix that problem.
The universe is unsustainable, life is inherently doomed because of entropy. Doesn’t mean we should give up because there will be no usable energy in 100 trillion years or whatever. The sun will burn out in a billion, the earths orbit will be too hot in 100 million. Would that still not be worth living for just because it can’t be saved? Where does it go from no point to worth fighting for?
(OP I’m not arguing with you I’m pointing out the problems I have with the article. I do agree it’s gonna be bad no matter what… all the more reason to try)
Surely we’re at the point where we can at least agree that whatever is going to happen is not going to be good.
Doomerism encourages apathy and helplessness. I don’t agree with resigning ourselves that the situation is unfixable. Every .1 degrees we can shave off is worth fighting tooth and nail for. As far as whether humanity as a whole is sustainable indefinitely, I don’t buy it. Even if we run out of rare earth metals 1000 years from now that’s 1000 years we have to fix that problem.
The universe is unsustainable, life is inherently doomed because of entropy. Doesn’t mean we should give up because there will be no usable energy in 100 trillion years or whatever. The sun will burn out in a billion, the earths orbit will be too hot in 100 million. Would that still not be worth living for just because it can’t be saved? Where does it go from no point to worth fighting for?
(OP I’m not arguing with you I’m pointing out the problems I have with the article. I do agree it’s gonna be bad no matter what… all the more reason to try)