[arcturus17]

There are extremely interesting technical and economical critiques in the article. They may be right or wrong but at least they’re intellectually rigorous - much more than the average GPT commentary.

Your comment, in a nutshell and if I’m reading it right, is that it’s not worth to engage with any of these ideas because progress - whatever that means, however that’s measured - is fast.

[pixl97]

Unfortunately the measurement if something was worth engaging in is only really able to determine its value in hindsight.

If it were 1890 we'd be talking about how our cities will soon be buried in animal dung which will lead to the collapse of mankind. The people debating that could not have reasonably foreseen in 100 years that CO2 would be the greater risk, and 100 years from now the greater risk will be something most of us have not imagined.

Are the issues you point out worth talking about? Of course, but are they worth the amount of time and effort that we will debate them? Get back to me in 5 years and we'll see.