From the mouths of children another wake up call. Who is listening?
TED talks w/ Greta Thunberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QxFM9y0tY
will play a pivotal roll in the coming changes that are necessary to transition off this destructive oil based economy and into a sustainable environmentally friendly one.
TED talks w/ Greta Thunberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QxFM9y0tY
will play a pivotal roll in the coming changes that are necessary to transition off this destructive oil based economy and into a sustainable environmentally friendly one.
she is a child and speak like a child...
Do we mess up nature...sure we do.
However, ask whether people of Sweden (or anywhere else) will give up their meat and their warm winter flats, etc etc in a noble goal of reducing emissions (with a big maybe), and you would hear a resounding NO.
Realistically, i see only two possibilities:
1. We will continue with population growth, pollution, environmental destruction until we would be too stupid to even comprehend the consequences (CO2 levels twice above normal reduce your intellect by 20%).
Why we would continue? because our lifespan is too short to comprehend the change that occurs over relatively long time periods (more than 30-50 years) and act on this in a democratic society with no dominating opinion.
Once we self-destruct en masse, Earth will return to semi-balance within 100 thou years, maximum a million, only to become unlivable (due to expanding Sun) in about 1 billion years.
BTW, I can see the effects of current civilization first hand. Most current students have significantly decreased levels of comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, etc. Maybe not true for Stanford, but certainly true in some run of the mill schools. The process of "idiocratization" is well on its way.
Can worldwide tech civilization sprung again after the survivors become smarter again following the crisis? Unlikely, since we already consumed vast %% of coal and oil.
This probably explains the Fermi paradox: there is nobody out there because it is impossible (or close to impossible) to solve this problem of civilization vs environmental destruction/pollution. This is proposed to be a Great Filter which presumably prevents civilization to continue over cosmically long time periods.
2. We would become non-biological, which would render Co2 levels moot. In such case, we would probably consume the biosphere or utilize their carbon for something else. Horrible?
Maybe, but it is my less favorable scenario.