[longtom]

> Unfortunately you are wrapping it in delusional hysteria such as "you will die of a horrible death from an infection without painkillers". So you're getting down voted because you are completely ignoring how things such as subsidies work.

Are you denying that reducing consumption drastically increase the chances of such a scenario? Of course what I wrote is only an illustrating, but likely plausible scenario, one of many ways in which it will increase ecological harshness.

[scrollaway]

Drastically increasing is meaningless if it's still an insignificant chance before and after. This is just not how things work and it's not a "plausible scenario", simply because we wouldn't let that happen.

We are barely able to give up pure leisure and convenience when faced with doomsday scenarios. You're under the impression the first thing that would go in such a scenario would be the life-saving stuff?

Production of eg. healthcare would absolutely be affected but that would just mean it would be more expensive for governments. Good example: your vaccine is free because governments invested collectively trillions of dollars into their production. It's free despite being one of the most expensive things we've done lately.

[longtom]

> You're under the impression the first thing that would go in such a scenario would be the life-saving stuff?

I think once we admit nature to be more important than humans, we will quickly slip on the slope and reduce consumption too far. Politics is largely dumb, so the risk is there. What you call leisure and dispensable is someone else's existence (e.g. the tourism industry). Central redistribution is hard and mostly does not work and gets abused. There are few historical examples in which it worked well and many in which it has failed.