[Ekaros]

I wonder if we should instead embrace the climate change. We know that no one will accept stopping rising standards of living or even lowering them. As such we are not going to emit less in long run.

Can we instead of make some changes on local level that effectively work with the climate change or minimise the impact? Might mean need to abandon some locations, but there has always been population movements.

[IanCal]

We need to do both. Climate change isn't a binary thing, the scale is important. We need to plan for things getting worse and work hard to stop them getting much worse than that.

[osullip]

That's a good point.

We are not turning back the systems that will heat the world.

If we approach it as a local challenge, there is a chance we can invent new ways to deal with it.

Maybe instead of this being the end, it could be a beginning of new science and development that counters the negative impacts of change.

Maybe, just maybe, we can get some good out of it.

[myshpa]

Do we really want to live and grow our food underground, wear pressurized spacesuits while on the surface, make our air from algae vats, build our villages under big domes?

How many would be able to live like this, how many would die until we would get to this point, and do we really want this?

The problem is the overconsumption and overpollution. That's the only problem.

Nothing good would come from your proposed solution, imho.

[vkou]

> Can we instead of make some changes on local level that effectively work with the climate change or minimise the impact?

We can always get our towns ready to receive the millions of climate refugees we'll be creating.

[myshpa]

Towns have no future in a collapse. Too hot, too water/fossil fuel dependent, too unsustainable.

[vkou]

No, it's the other way around.

Towns and cities are actually far more resource efficient than rural and suburban sprawl.

The only inefficient thing in them is highrises. But five-story buildings are incredibly infrastructure-efficient. Walking through a midrise neighborhood puts you past more people per minute, than driving 120 mph through a suburb.

[myshpa]

> No, it's the other way around

When everything works as intended. In a collapse everything changes.

Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future.

[vkou]

> Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future.

Unless you're a subsistence peasant, which 99.9% of rural and semi-rural (suruban) people aren't, you're going to have the same exact problems from a lack of all those things.

[myshpa]

Yes, it's gonna end up badly for most.