[eikenberry]

I think you can forgive people for wanting to look for solutions that don't require millions/billions of deaths, as that's the only way you'll see the level of change necessary. It will happen naturally over time as economic levels rise and reproduction rates drop below sustaining. But that will take centuries and lots of resources, so I'm doubtful that is what you are proposing.

[thaumasiotes]

> It will happen naturally over time as economic levels rise and reproduction rates drop below sustaining. But that will take centuries

The theory of evolution tells us that over centuries, reproduction rates will not drop.

[brightstep]

The solution you describe has already been found: stop burning and leave fossil fuels in the ground. Technological solutions are the opposite. They're an attempt to avoid the what everyone already knows is the answer.

[lovecg]

There are millions of people who are not in poverty right now because these fuels are being used. What you’re suggesting will immediately put them back into poverty. A lot of them will probably die of starvation and disease. I don’t think they’ll go down without a fight.

[kornhole]

I can't cite the statistic I read, but it seems very plausible that the wealthiest ten percent of the world's population contribute about fifty percent of the world's pollution. They are going to put up a bigger fight. It doesn't have to be a major fight though. Social pressure can go a long way.

[kbenson]

I think what you call "the answer" is almost definitely going to lead to future large wars. What it really requires is either all nations, at the same time, agreeing to just stop doing things that give them an advantage, or to have people (correctly) view other nations lack of care with regard to the environment as actively hurting them and their future, and be willing to take action over that.

I think people trying to find anything possible to avoid or alleviate that issue perhaps deserve a bit more consideration of their position and reasoning. Because the U.S, Europe, China and India and Pakistan have a lot of people to prioritize over the rest of the world, and how they decide if and when to adopt provisions may be different than other nations, but they have just as big of sticks to try to protect what they see as their own best course of action.