http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
The reality is that no one really know whats going to happen. Maybe we are doomed maybe we will do just fine, maybe an astroid will hit earth before we find out.
Personally i dont think there is much we can do other than to charge on, keep growing our economies and develop new technologies and solutions to the problems nature always have presented us with.
The third industrial revolution will by necessity change what we currently understand economies to be:
https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5zaq/watch-vices-new...
If you want to stand a chance against whether you fear the environment will do to you need growth to be able to pay for the development of new technologies.
Here is the paradox you are dealing with.
We also know that growth and free markets help those who have access to it get out of poverty and much more prosperity. That means at least a couple of billion more people are hoping to get what you and I have.
Are you going to tell them they can't have what you have? And if you are what are you going to offer them in return that they would care about. They don't care about the environment in any shape or form that you or me or any other westerner does.
This is the paradox we are dealing with. If there is a third industrial revolution it certainly won't be based on the sharing economy that's not how humans work.
Growth and free markets are what is driving overconsumption
If you think that living 200 years ago was a better life for most people just because they had more nature and couldn't consume as much I think you would be mistaken.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Growth and prosperity comes with its own problems and challenges but I take those any day over an antigrowth philosophy.
'Growth' as you are defining it, is unsustainable. Do you you know what 'unsustainable' means? It means it must stop. Not 'has to', 'would be nice to' but 'must'. It has a hard physical thermodynamic ceiling. Your philosophy has no future.
Second of all my philosophy of using technology to solve the problems that nature presents to us has no future? I am not sure what you are doing here using a computer then or why you are wasting time and energy on a website debating with strangers.
The next bit of your post exemplifies exactly the king of thinking that brought us to this point in human history. And then you end with the silly strawmen, seriously ? Do you really think 3rd world countries are going to repeat the same mistakes, why will they build coal plants when they can have of the shelf solar plants for a fraction of the price ?
Yes the 3rd world absolutely wants the prosperity we have. You might disagree with that (and you would be hard-pressed to find many countries who don't aspire) but it's certainly no strawman. But hey keep telling yourself that so you don't have to deal with the facts.
With regards to whether humans are responsible for that vast majority of the change again it's not as clear cut as I am sure you would like to portray it. None the less even if that was the case it's certainly not going to be solved by stopping countries from aspiring for more prosperity for their citizens.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone in impoverished parts of the world even _want_ the kind of prosperity we have? It seems to be taken for granted that all the drawbacks to modern civilization are outweighed by the benefits. But then, isn't this the same mindset that has set us on this course of man-made global heating?
I suppose I'm advocating for leaving other countries to decide their own paths and not trying to push our prosperity onto them. If that makes me a greedy Westerner, so be it. I don't exactly enjoy my society, anyway.
I think that our lifestyles is toxic, especially for other places (africa, asia), for us too (stress, sadness, different diseases).. anyway, we replaced one kind of life struggle with another one.
And I do feel sad that 3rd world is somehow envying, even though it's not surprising, western life is pure eye candy, and designed to be so.
And I heard a few people leaving big western cities to go into medium ones, for the difference of pace and life quality (more space, more green).
Even if there were a few countries that didn't want their kids to survive simple diseases have enough food to feed their family or not have to worry about the safety of their family I am fairly certain that most countries want that.
I am also fairly certain that you are not willing to trade all these "drawbacks" of modern society for a life in an unmodern society and even if you were it would most likely be a very short-lived desire.
Which countries exactly is it you think don't want the kind of growth we have in the west?
Not sure I understand what you are trying to show here.
Self-determination is a long and arduous process. It took the U.S. over 250 years to get to where we are (much longer if you consider how much we borrowed from Britain). We've paid a hefty price in mental health along the way.
We can provide healthcare and other benefits of modern society through trade without forcing these things on them, although that would admittedly take longer. It could be that poorer countries decide they value traditional culture and avoiding wastefulness (and the climate impacts this brings with it) to convenience and glamor. I don't know, it's not my place to say.
So not sure what makes you think other societies don't want the kind prosperity to their citizens we have in the west.
Not sure what you mean with providing healthcare for them as if it wouldn't be better they themselves were able to provide healthcare.
I would urge you to rethink your position. Not because I want to decide what you think but because it's not really founded in anything of thise world.
Not knowledgeable.
Anyway, I could tolerate a lot more green anyway :)
We know that earth is warming, we know humans have some effect but not how much, we know that it can have consequences that the oceans are rising but so far we haven't really been able to predict how it's going to affect things (there is natural erosion from the oceans which is unrelated to humans)
I think the debate could be a lot more rational if people didn't paint themselves into corners such as the "climate catastrophist" and "climate deniers" in reality there is a lot of things we all agree on but these extreme views are taking everyone hostage to the point were I can't even comment on this without being downvoted (instead of pointing to where someone disagree). The debate certainly has gotten 50% more toxic :)