[raydiak]

This is a straw man, nobody asserted that the consequences should not be considered. Clearly, whichever way we proceed there will be considerable consequences; I doubt there is any dispute about that. Your argument seems to fail to acknowledge the dystopian consequences of NOT doing something.

Also, let's dispense with inappropriate jabs such as referring to other perspectives as "fantasy".

[jahsome]

I disagree with every single thing you said.

I think GP was arguing for exactly what I asserted, and it's a literal fantasy to imagine doing something 20 years ago.

I'd like to point out I wasn't being dismissive, at all. Sorry you read into it that way.

[raydiak]

You still haven't addressed the consequences of NOT doing something.

Perhaps you've never heard the expression about "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now." It's an aphorism, absolutely not literal. [1] Additionally, even if it were intended literally, which it clearly was not, saying it should have been done 20 years ago is not the same as fantasizing. It also obviously concludes that it should be done now, which is not fantasy.

I didn't say you were dismissive. If you have valid points, you should be able to make them without rewording everything into something else that you can tear down. That's called a straw man argument. "... the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction" [2]

[1] https://english.stackexchange.com/a/603725 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[BrenBarn]

> I think GP was arguing for exactly what I asserted

I was not, as I explained in another comment.

[jahsome]

My mistake.