[svara]

Attibuting any specific catastrophic event to climate change is hardly possible, though. Arguably, climate change is already playing a role in conflicts around the world. The arab spring (and therefore the ongoing war in Syria) was partly triggered by discontent over food prices, which are of course closely linked to the local weather and thus climate change. Here's an article that explores this is some more detail:

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/conflicts-affected-...

[rowanG077]

That is a localized conflict. It really is a problem once the entire world is touched. If global warming will not result in large scale wars and people dying en masse it's not really a problem. It would mean global warning would only entail a reduction in quality of life not large enough to warrant violence.

Even if global warning has a death toll of 10% of the world population I don't consider that a real problem. As long as humanity can progress afterwards it's fine.

[dTal]

>Even if global warning has a death toll of 10% of the world population I don't consider that a real problem.

Absolutely incredible. Are you picturing your friends and family in this hypothetical 10% death toll? Or the social conditions that would result in this number (comparable to Germany in WW2)?

What is so horrifying to you about stopping global warming, that literally decimating the world's population is the less bad option?

[rowanG077]

I never said it wouldn't be horrible. But let's be honest the human species lived on after WW2. I'm not sure where you got that I think that stopping global warming is horrifying, I don't think I ever said that. Beside that point that is not what I believe.

I think it would be great if we could stop global warming. But I don't think it socially possible. The only glimmer of hope I have left is that it is only a significant reduction of the human population while the rest can move on.