[coldtea]

>Yeah, but that's completely politically infeasible. There's no way to get people to just stop using existing resources to improve their quality of life - or even to keep their quality of life at current levels - without any immediate tangible consequences. And of course, by the time the disaster arrives, it'll be too late to change.

So, to paraphrase, it's like we're on the Titanic, sinking, but there's no way to stop people from dancing and dining on the upper deck, and start getting on the lifeboats or helping close the rift.

[MrEldritch]

Here's a closer analogy: We're on the Titanic. It's sinking, probably, but it's still mostly possible to ignore it. Some very smart people have calculated that the lifeboats cannot possibly hold the weight of everyone aboard; if we are going to save ourselves, either we have to start throwing some people overboard, or we all have to cut off a limb to meet the weight allowance.

Nobody is especially eager to do either of those things - the people who would have to be thrown overboard are especially not enthusiastic about it, and nobody's exactly enthused about the alternative solution of choosing our least favorite arms. So as long as it's possible to pretend that everything's going to be fine and we're not sinking and the hole isn't that big anyway and even if it was, we could always patch it eventually, and even if we can't, maybe rescue will get here in time ... we're not going to resort to that. Not until we absolutely, really have to.

By the time we're desperate enough to resort to such things, it will be too late and there will no longer be time to select who to throw overboard or conduct the necessary amputations.

[esotericn]

I get that you're having a bit of fun with this, but is there a reason you're throwing about words like 'amputation'?

Globally we currently burn coal for 30% of electricity consumption. All fossil fuels put together is like 90%.

We have people jetting around the world for short-term thrills or business meetings that could be done over the phone. We have people in the US who think it's appropriate to drive 7mpg trucks and throw clouds of shit at pedestrians.

We have such a ridiculous amount of waste in the system that could be completely eliminated with minimal impact.

It may politically be difficult, or impossible to achieve, sure. And perhaps it won't be enough anyway. But it seems to me like you're imagining literally any change in lifestyle to be an 'amputation'.

Am I, or you, 'amputated' relative to some arbitrary person who has double, triple, quadruple the carbon footprint? If not, why not?

Why must the standard for amputation be whatever people have right now rather than considering that at the moment perhaps we're running around with Iron Man suits we have to take off?

Or are you saying that forcing the ignorant masses to make those changes would be a sort of amputation? Because there are too many people who will just tell you 'fuck u gon burn ma oil' or whatever?

[netsharc]

There aren't even lifeboats in this analogy... or has someone built a spaceship to sustain life off earth?

[coldtea]

"Get into lifeboats" I just meant as "do something to stay alive", not as in "escape somewhere else" necessarily.