I think we could, theoretically, take very drastic action. Currently there are more than enough resources in the world to accommodate for everyone and also enough brainpower to reorganise the production and distribution of these resources to stop being dependent on climate destroying practices reasonably quickly. After all, we survived quite well before the advent of fossil fuels, and you have to remember that a big share of all the resources produced went to the richest class.
It is just that all our resources and development potential all lead to the richening of the rich, because that’s just what our economic and political system is hard-wired to do. I would argue that that’s pretty analogous to the experience of Greg – sure, he could theoretically stop drinking entirely very quickly and survive (with some withdrawal symptoms), but his brain; his governing system is hard-wired to continue because of his addiction.
We have a much higher standard of living than before industrialization (the time before fossil fuels) so cutting all use tomorrow would lead to a lot of issues.
One major drastic action we should take though is removing our subsidies for the fossil fuel industry because right now we subside them entirely too much for having to get away from them. We could instead put those subsidies towards renewable energy sources and swapping out energy consumption more towards electricity instead of directly fossil fuels (like natural gas heating for homes, etc)
And as is tradition for many things nowadays: distribution and access to services is one of the biggest hurdles. The resources that exist that could support everyone are not evenly distributed and to do so is not something that can be done without energy costs.
A great example distribution hurdles is clean water. We have more than enough clean drinking water for everyone currently alive but to get it to everyone is massive hurdle as there are parts of the world thousands of miles from clean and safe drinking water.
We have to have proper plans in place for moving to renewable energy otherwise things will go poorly. We should be doing more to make it happen faster though.
We should be dumping resources and money at this problem like the continuation of our species depends upon it, because it does.
Overnight for a human would correspond more closely to within a year for society, and that’s what I meant.
But I very much fear that even relatively drastic change through capitalism is still going to lead us to disaster.
Edit: I realise my response is inadequate. You talk about the distribution problem. I say a lot of the need for distribution is artificial: either the rich want to prevent the poor from creating their own so that they become reliant, or the rich take the poor’s resources from them because of needless greed.
Most of the real lacks, including that of water, could probably be solved with infrastructure. As for what really needs to be transported, if we really want, there shouldn’t be too big an issue with doing it in a way that doesn’t actively destroy the Earth.
Unfortunately through capitalism is the only way that we have
But the good news is that we don’t have unregulated capitalism so we have more of a means of actually doing something
We do have to put pressure on our politicians to achieve it though and unfortunately so many people have taken a “We’re doomed anyways so why bother” attitude which only benefits those who benefit from us doing nothing
I get it’s a joke but the situations are very not comparable
Greg has the technology and infrastructure already in place to quit overnight, he’s just dragging his feet
We currently don’t have everything in place to do so overnight
Are we currently doing enough in regards to climate change? Abso-fucking-lutely not.
And we should be putting pressure on our politicians to make it happen faster because the current rate is not fast enough.
You’re saying satire sometimes exaggerates its comparisons? I’m outraged!
I have a feeling you’re exaggerating your emotional outburst at this bit of text from the internet.
Captain Holt?
I think we could, theoretically, take very drastic action. Currently there are more than enough resources in the world to accommodate for everyone and also enough brainpower to reorganise the production and distribution of these resources to stop being dependent on climate destroying practices reasonably quickly. After all, we survived quite well before the advent of fossil fuels, and you have to remember that a big share of all the resources produced went to the richest class.
It is just that all our resources and development potential all lead to the richening of the rich, because that’s just what our economic and political system is hard-wired to do. I would argue that that’s pretty analogous to the experience of Greg – sure, he could theoretically stop drinking entirely very quickly and survive (with some withdrawal symptoms), but his brain; his governing system is hard-wired to continue because of his addiction.
We have a much higher standard of living than before industrialization (the time before fossil fuels) so cutting all use tomorrow would lead to a lot of issues.
One major drastic action we should take though is removing our subsidies for the fossil fuel industry because right now we subside them entirely too much for having to get away from them. We could instead put those subsidies towards renewable energy sources and swapping out energy consumption more towards electricity instead of directly fossil fuels (like natural gas heating for homes, etc)
And as is tradition for many things nowadays: distribution and access to services is one of the biggest hurdles. The resources that exist that could support everyone are not evenly distributed and to do so is not something that can be done without energy costs.
A great example distribution hurdles is clean water. We have more than enough clean drinking water for everyone currently alive but to get it to everyone is massive hurdle as there are parts of the world thousands of miles from clean and safe drinking water.
We have to have proper plans in place for moving to renewable energy otherwise things will go poorly. We should be doing more to make it happen faster though.
We should be dumping resources and money at this problem like the continuation of our species depends upon it, because it does.
Overnight for a human would correspond more closely to within a year for society, and that’s what I meant.
But I very much fear that even relatively drastic change through capitalism is still going to lead us to disaster.
Edit: I realise my response is inadequate. You talk about the distribution problem. I say a lot of the need for distribution is artificial: either the rich want to prevent the poor from creating their own so that they become reliant, or the rich take the poor’s resources from them because of needless greed.
Most of the real lacks, including that of water, could probably be solved with infrastructure. As for what really needs to be transported, if we really want, there shouldn’t be too big an issue with doing it in a way that doesn’t actively destroy the Earth.
Unfortunately through capitalism is the only way that we have
But the good news is that we don’t have unregulated capitalism so we have more of a means of actually doing something
We do have to put pressure on our politicians to achieve it though and unfortunately so many people have taken a “We’re doomed anyways so why bother” attitude which only benefits those who benefit from us doing nothing
I’m starting to feel like the banks and the companies are taking the lead on this one. The politicians are playing real hands-off.