>>13495973Not really, but I also have my own questions to /sci/: Even if the scientific consensus is that climate change is real and it is caused by humans... how can we be so sure that they are right? Consensus, on any subject, doesn't guarantee infallibility. Scientists had been wrong many times in history. But we are supposed to believe in certain doom from people who can't even make accurate predictions on the weather (not even for tomorrow). Climate, especially in the long-run, is notoriously difficult to calculate given how there are orders of magnitudes more input factors in the equation.
But let's we believe them anyway, and say they are correct on both counts: in that case we can't do anything since we are already on a 'collision course' to certain doom. In that case, why even bother...? Can we even meaningfully mitigate the effects?
Even if we believe them and accept the mainstream talking points: this doesn't mean a thing in and of itself. It doesn't mean that there exists A solution to this problem. It doesn't mean that this (or any number of other) solutions are feasible (e.g. human nature, lack of tech, lack of resources, lack of time, etc). Furthermore, it doesn't make it acceptable to strip people (or perhaps entire countries) of their rights, at least as long as we're considering the moral side of the story. Lastly, even if there is at least one solution that is feasible and workable: why does anyone think it is desirable i.e. it's better than the alternative? Would an A.I. ruling over humanity 'selecting the best, killing the rest' be better? Would a Chinese-style technocratic dictator with an iron fist be better? I'd argue that it MAY be better for civilization and continuation of the human race, but it would certainly be worse for the individuals in it...
