>>11840250If it becomes soon apparent that there's no way not only to make green energy plentifful enough but even to keep building wind/solar, maybe the green will actually consider the fact and begin advocating for nuclear fission ? I mean if they're faced with full on fission on full on coal they couldn't push to drop the only renewable and decarbonated energy source without renouncing to any legitimacy right ?
>even fission is only a short term solution on human time scalesI thought that it was actually really widespread, or at least enough to give us the time to lower our energy needs on the medium term while relying on a reliable source of energy.
>>11840237>I’d guess a modern war would be decided just by civilian casualties and economic damageI'd guess this kind of wat would end up in annihilation of the losers population while the winner grabs the resources and arable land (or even habitable land in case of quick climate change).
>>11839153I didn't mean fucked in the middle term considering sustainability issues but fucked like absolutely completely totally irremediably fucked right now, MacPherson-level fucked since it's actually what it objectively looks like. I mean we're even right on his timeframe, almost spot on by the year. Which is quite fun since it seems that his audience was actually less wide since several years.
I guess the fact that even people on /sci/ are unwilling to talk about this shows how much we're screwed. I mean it's like lurkers scrolling saw this thread and don't even see anything worrying about high arctic temperatures, maybe thay don't even know about the methane mechanism ? It's strange since it's begun to get a bit mainstream since a few year, definitely not widely known fact but people who browse the Internet should have stumbled upon it by now.
