It's kind of important whether it's 2095 (prepare for it, set up nuclear, reduce carbon emissions) or 2025 (fuck global warming, we need fuel and we need it now, the more carbon emitted the better).
jerdle_lemmy
joined 1 year ago
Actions that work in the possible world in which it collapses soon are actively harmful in possible worlds in which it doesn't. Acting as if a threat will happen only makes sense if the action isn't significantly harmful in cases where it doesn't, where significantly is based on the harm of not being prepared and the chance of it happening.
If the Gulf Stream will collapse by 2025, the response isn't to be more eco-friendly. In fact, it's the opposite. Everyone in the north should prepare to burn a lot more fuel, and concern for global warming would definitely be reduced. Global warming is something you can only afford to give a shit about when temperatures haven't just dropped by 3.5C and you haven't just lost 78% of your arable land (UK figures, because that's where I live).
Then don't call it communism.
If a vaguely populist leader started outright talking about supporting fascism, that would quite rightly bring to mind at least Italian Fascism if not German Nazism, and arguing that they just meant the idea of close mutual support and people being stronger together (like a fasces) would not work.
An extra complication necessary to make something work. It's generally negative.
No, it really doesn't. It's a kludge to allow hostile humour against people you don't like, while protecting those you do, all while claiming impartiality.
You are. People would be very worried. It's just that their worry would not be expressed in attempts to improve things in the long-term when there's a short-term disaster.
If the Gulf Stream will definitely collapse in 2025 (which is not what the study says), then that's too soon to do anything about, so the priority is surviving it rather than preventing it. Fundamentally, things that help prevent disaster are not the same as things that help survive it.