My feeling, @Eceni, is that we have to stop burning any fossil hydrocarbon AT ALL this decade, and the trick is to work out how to build the good society with just the materials we already have (and how to make that a vision that a democratic electorate will vote for).
I believe that this is possible. I'm not going to pretend I think it is either easy or likely.
@simon_brooke@Eceni I would even contend that "good society" could be replaced by "much better society" or "flourishing society" and your claim still hold true that it is possible.
But also hold true that it is not likely. Sadly, not even remotely so.
@Eceni@jackdweeb@simon_brooke and the good news is we get to have a better calamity by trying to prevent the calamity, so our efforts lead to iterative processes, and not binary ones.
@simon_brooke@Eceni@jackdweeb yeah, but I mean literally every little thing we do is part of that. There's no threshold for 'better'. Better is better and better is worthwhile.
@Loukas@Eceni@jackdweeb There is a pretty hard 'good enough' threshold here. We're facing multiple crises which, unless all are resolved, are going to mean at least a population crash this century. If we achieve 'better' on the #ClimateEmergency axis without also achieving better on the #Ecocide axis, we still crash.
This isn't to say we shouldn't strive for 'better' – of course we must.
@simon_brooke@Eceni@jackdweeb you can set thresholds, but those don't mean that work which falls short of them isn't still 'better'. I'd rather suffer a population crash in a garden with friends than not.
@Eceni@simon_brooke "Its as likely as we make it be" for sure. It was my assessment of how "we" are behaving that led to my contention of it being unlikely.
But I did not mean it to sound like defeatism. I completely agree that the only logical course is to take action, indeed to work for it.
Add comment