I wasn't clear. I was questioning the overly simplistic "no life at all" as if some environmental changes are made the reduction in quality of life will be significant
Because of corona many people now have no life at all (i.e., they’re dead), and many more would have died if not for all the measures, so not sure how the statement was overly simplistic.
Same goes for the environment, if we don’t act, the environmental changes will have life ending impact for a significant number of people. Maybe not directly, but there will be food shortage, and wars. It is in the interest of everyone that we try to limit the impact of global warming as much as possible.
* “What was break neck speed was maybe the corona response, which was a good thing”
* “I couldn't disagree more. … The first priority for life on this planet is to have a decent quality of life.“
* “You can’t have quality of life if you have no life at all.”