[neuronic]

It might be dismissed as hyperbole but we are looking at extinction and not just a "bad time". Granted, it will take quite some time, generations even, to reach that severity but we are well on the trajectory to get there.

It's horrifying to think about the escalating crises of global ecosystems. In a world, where too many people can't even be bothered to wear a mask during an ongoing pandemic I have zero confidence in preventing an extinction level disaster where the truly severe consequences aren't felt for another 2 generations. Some people just do not care if it doesn't directly affect them right this very second.

It's sociopathy on another scale.

[Ixiaus]

We're not facing extinction yet and this sort-of alarmism is actually unhelpful. I too thought for a while that we're facing extinction but we're not there yet, I found this helpful to read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/08/denial...

I do think, however, that we're living in a "golden age" and that it will come to an end somewhat abruptly. Many people will probably die but we're not going to go extinct.

I share your concern regarding the inability of so many people (at least in the USA) to perform the simple task of wearing a mask for communal good. It does not bode well for community engagement on totally revamping people's lifestyles to help mitigate climate change (I can imagine the foaming at the mouth that would occur with many people around where I live - Austin - if the government instituted a gasoline car buyback program in exchange for hybrids, as a simple example.)

[NumberWangMan]

But if you think about it, MOST people DO wear masks -- and to mitigate climate change, the strategy is not to convince everyone to voluntarily change their behavior, it's to price in the externalities, changing incentives, and let the behavior changes naturally flow from that. That just takes a small group of dedicated individuals, and a pretty decent majority of Americans already support climate legislation (our representatives are kinda lagging behind in that department).

Imagine if we had a way to magically make everything more expensive to people who don't wear masks :)

Also, even if everyone were willing to make the necessary changes voluntarily, I wouldn't have much confidence in our ability to accurately calculate which actions have the most impact on our climate footprint, without involving market mechanisms in some way. We'd probably focus on stuff that feels important over stuff that's mundane but actually has a much bigger impact. As an example, I'm kinda thinking of people who do that "zero-waste" thing (refers to landfill waste), which is fine, but you can live "zero waste" and still have a pretty substantial climate footprint, and vice-versa.

[Ixiaus]

It seems you were downvoted for reasons I don't understand but I think your comment is important.

I agree that aligning economic incentives is a good (and probably the only?) way to steer hordes of people in directions that will either help or harm the "community".

I'm not actually sure whether most people are or aren't wearing masks. While driving out to camp in the desert, stops to get gas provided (very limited anecdata) that people generally don't care at all about mask wearing. Which is why I think it was the right move where I live to force businesses to deny service to people not wearing masks but these people tend to only do it in settings where they become pariahs if they don't (so they're only doing it to conform, which is better than not at all). e.g. in some places, the people running the place don't even care so therefore it goes unenforced (if not procedurally, definitely not socially).

I also agree with your concern about our/my/your ability to accurately estimate anything of importance. But this isn't a good reason alone for not encouraging thinking and care about these things, even if it means reeducation later on (harm reduction as opposed to some form of "getting it perfect", which is exceedingly hard).

However there is one important point: moving people cognitively towards thinking about these issues in a moral framework of care and purity is probably better than not, even if it means slightly more carbon output due to higher calorie consumption because of bicycle riding instead of driving a car (e.g. I support a carbon tax much more now than I did before I got rid of my car, it wasn't a cause mind you but it certainly co-occurred with my beginning to care more about the sanctity of our natural environment).

So, I agree with you generally, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking only in terms of economic or technological solutions because not focusing on the social domain can have consequences (read: conservatives now becoming science deniers and buying gas guzzling trucks to stick it to the libs, for example).

[markus_zhang]

I also believe pretty much the same thing. The end of this globalization plus the gradual change in climate might meet together to bring a bigger bang and most of us, who are accustomed to the relative peace and abundance of resources are ill prepared.

[pstuart]

The downvotes hurt, not for the social scoring but to share a real and valid concern and have that concern dismissed. I'd say it borders on literal crazy making.

You get debated on "extinction" when you might technically be wrong because a handful of people might be left but the planet will have still been rendered inhospitable for most.

You're absolutely correct, it is sociopathy on another scale.