|
|
|
|
|
by ndrh
28 days ago
|
|
That is bad enough to prioritize avoiding at all costs (mainly costs to the upper crust of the economy, the part most resistant to meaningful change). I, for one, don't believe civilization could handle perpetual catastrophe, the loss of billions of people while retaining a grow-or-die economic model, our largest cities needing to "move" inland/uphill, and migrating populations escaping ininhabitable areas, etc. etc., without altogether collapsing. Look how fragile it is - blocking the Strait of Hormuz alone caused economic near-calamity in some markets. It's like we are all on a fast-moving treadmill, and once tripped, there's no getting back up. This isn't the world of 1933. |
|