[danmaz74]

Sure, we're going to emit a lot of carbon dioxide for a long time, but we're talking about planet-level changes here, and changing the trend/trajectory has HUGE impact. At least if you care about future generations (I've got a daughter and several nephews, I don't know about you). Anyway, I asked chatgpt to estimate actual averaged capacity, and for China we have that nuclear+renewables (low-carbon) added 73% of new capacity in the last two years. I bet that the figure will become even better in the next years, as batteries and other storage methods become less expensive.

Regarding the Moon, are you sure that you're not equating "populist" with "what I personally like"?

To make a counterexample, what do you think about free universal medical care? Do you think that "the masses" would "naturally" want that, or not?

PS By the way, I'm far from what you would probably define "woke". I actually think that the excesses of wokism were a decisive contributing factor to Trump's win.

[somenameforme]

The capacity factor means you're also adding less energy than it might seem. Here is a nice graph of CO2 levels [1]. There's a breakdown by country a bit lower. The trend for CO2 levels remains quite sharp. And China is not the only factor. Asia, especially India, Africa, and many other places are due for ever greater levels of development and industrialization. For instance India has 1.4 billion people yet just 60% of the emissions of Europe. The entirety of Africa has less than 33% the emissions of Europe! These figures are not sustainable.

However, I am not that concerned about it, also as a family man. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels in the world, they will run out eventually, and become economically unfeasible long before that. So even if we do absolutely nothing, the world will likely be economically forced to start transitioning away, likely on a timeframe that is within our lives. Arguably it's already happening with places in the Mideast aggressively seeking to diversify their economies. In any case CO2 levels when dinos roamed the Earth and the oceans were full of life, were upwards of 1200ppm owing to natural processes. We're not going to hit anywhere near that even if we burn everything - in other words there's no scenario where we become Venus, or anything even remotely like it. Some places will become more hospitable, some will become less, optimal places for growing crops (and/or different types of crops) will shift, and overall there will be a lot more greenery. It's a pretty dumb experiment, but it'll be fine.

---

On free healthcare - if we are speaking hypothetically of genuinely free health care at comparable quality then obviously everybody's going to want it. The problem is that those 'political objections' are pretty tough in this case. Obviously it won't be free - it'd be paid through taxes, and the government has already shown itself in a relationship with the healthcare industry where they are, at the minimum, uninterested in reigning in healthcare costs, and government operated systems invariably balloon costs.

Outside of free likely becoming quite expensive, there's also the issue of quality and availability. Countries that have had experience running 'free' healthcare systems for decades are increasingly running into problems in modern times with declining economic growth, declining fertility, increasing health issues (obesity, psychological, etc), and so on. Even Scandiland is seeing increasing trends towards privatization in healthcare, and that's with a vastly more appropriate population for such - much less corruption, healthier, preexisting high taxes, fewer social divisions, fewer people seeking to abuse the systems in place, etc. It is still working for them, but I'm not sure if it's indefinitely sustainable at current fertility/economic trends.

---

And yeah, I definitely knew you weren't "woke" since they in general seem completely incapable of having a good old debate/discussion! I think the fear of 'wrongthink' makes people accept things that they wouldn't otherwise rationally accept which makes them unable to competently defend their views when speaking somebody of a different worldview.

[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

[danmaz74]

Just two quick answers before we agree to disagree :)

* Life on Earth will survive any human-made change, even a full nuclear war. It's our society which won't survive if changes are too quick.

* Publicly ran healthcare systems in Europe and elsewhere are MUCH more cost efficient than the US private system, it's very easy to compare cost/performance, so the "government operated systems invariably balloon costs" is just false in this case. This isn't to say that private enterprises aren't more efficient in most cases, and the issue with private healthcare isn't that they're not efficient in terms of resources used - it’s just that maximizing profits and shareholder value when people’s lives are on the line means that you, as a health care customer, will be gouged for every penny they can get.

[somenameforme]

Brevity is a skill. Like Mark Twain wrote - I apologize for such a lengthy letter, I hadn't the time to write a short one!

In general I agree with you on both fronts - our disagreement is mostly going to be in the details and forecasts. For instance the impacts of climate change are already happening. Sea levels in parts of Florida have already risen more than 8 inches since the 50s. Yet beach front property is still selling for a premium. The point is that I expect it's going to be gradual enough that society will have time to adapt, even if the change over an extended period of time may be quite significant.

And I also completely agree that the healthcare systems pretty much anywhere in the world, government or privately operated, are dramatically more efficient than the US private system. But I don't think you can expect that to change if the government starts operating it. Medicaid's savings requires studies to measure since it's nominally more expensive/person than private healthcare. What savings there are, after a bunch of adjustments and assumptions, seem mostly explained by paying healthcare providers less per service, which is why a sizable chunk of places don't accept it. It doesn't really scream 'yeah, let's make this global and mandated' to me.

That said, I had a Norwegian friend visiting me over here in the other side of the world. He ended up getting an ear infection and went to the most premium local hospital to get it sorted out. Final charge to him = $0, even internationally. Enough to make anybody absolutely jealous, but I'm going to have a hard time believing America might be able to land on this Moon. Cheap and efficient just isn't the American way.