Well, I promised I wouldn’t, so I won’t, but there are lots of broad statements without justification here, that I would love to expand.
Nevertheless my actual question is being answered, if you and SarahC are at all representative (obviously, I understand that many other opinions will exist). Climate change IS seen as a serious threat, but the idea of changing lifestyles/direction of industrilaisation is seen variously as difficult/impossible/not objectively worthwhile—so we’ll deal with the consequences as they arise.
Climate change IS seen as a serious threat, but the idea of changing lifestyles/direction of industrilaisation is seen variously as difficult/impossible/not objectively worthwhile—so we’ll deal with the consequences as they arise.
On the personal level, yes to an extent. If the government wasn’t crazy then of course changing the direction of industrialization would be best (after funding tons of existential risks research groups). But in the real world, for any sufficiently advanced social engineering project the quickest and easiest fix is to just build god. (Vassar said something like that.)
Well, I promised I wouldn’t, so I won’t, but there are lots of broad statements without justification here, that I would love to expand.
Nevertheless my actual question is being answered, if you and SarahC are at all representative (obviously, I understand that many other opinions will exist). Climate change IS seen as a serious threat, but the idea of changing lifestyles/direction of industrilaisation is seen variously as difficult/impossible/not objectively worthwhile—so we’ll deal with the consequences as they arise.
On the personal level, yes to an extent. If the government wasn’t crazy then of course changing the direction of industrialization would be best (after funding tons of existential risks research groups). But in the real world, for any sufficiently advanced social engineering project the quickest and easiest fix is to just build god. (Vassar said something like that.)