• jimbo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Let me fix that analogy. Imagine everyone in the room is pumping varying amounts of gas into the room and if they suddenly decide to stop, a significant number of people in the room are going to die.

    Now sure, people are going to die anyway, but humans tend to be a lot more comfortable with the negative consequences of inaction than the negative consequences of action.

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What would it require for people to restructure modern society in a way that would allow humans to stop producing greenhouse gases? A lot of actions. We can’t simply “stop” without the widespread availability of alternative technologies for energy production and transportation.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We are already allowed to stop. Turning on a machine is an action. We don’t need more technology to stop using existing technology.

          It sounds like your concern is more systemic than the literal action of polluting. In which case, the action we’re currently taking is legal protection of polluters from people who would defend themselves.

          Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but we aren’t entitled to all the same stuff we have today, at the cost of destroying the climate. We’re essentially stealing from future people.