Per capita doesn't really matter to the temp.
As a Chinese national living in the U.S., I would like my fellow countryperson to have the same standard of living as an average American does. Unfortunately this view is not shared by many Americans, including Obama [0].
[0] "...if over a billion Chinese citizens have the same living patterns as Australians and Americans do right now then all of us are in for a very miserable time, the planet just can't sustain it": https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/face-to-face-with-obama/2673356
For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive.
But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322
>Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.
If you look at extreme heat events, they haven't changed over the last 150 years. The last thirty years have seen slightly milder winters in the northern hemisphere. That article admits the data on heat deaths is poor, therefore it can't conclude much of anything except to speculate about bogus model extremes.
Scroll down to figure 6.3. You can see that the 1920's to 1940's had more extreme heat events than any time since. Figure 6.4 is also useful to look at.
IPCC AR5 WGI Section 2.6.2.3 says they have "low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the century" https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_f...
As far as model's go, gosh where to begin...
Read the closing remarks here. They admit in far to many words cooking the books or 'tuning' the model to fit what they observed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...
Another book examining albedo modification admits their futility: "The uncertainties in modeling of both climate change and the consequences of albedo modification make it impossible today to provide reliable, quantitative statements about relative risks, consequences, and benefits of albedo modification to the Earth system as a whole, let alone benefits and risks to specific regions of the planet." source: https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/4#39
Or just find the climate gate code from a few years back and see how horrendous it is for yourself.
The paper starts with “ United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence)”
But reading the text around your chosen chart is even more enlightening.
“ are mainly tied to the unprecedented summer heat of the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which was exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits and land mismanagement. However, anthropogenic aerosol forcing may also have reduced summer temperatures in the Northeast and Southeast from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, and agricultural intensification may have suppressed the hottest extremes in the Midwest.”
If you’re going to cherry pick at least do it from a paper that doesn’t counter your argument.
Of course, per capita is not the only criteria to be considered but, those who emit the most per capita and profited the most from fossil fuels should be an example to the world.