There are bound to be totalitarian/authoritarian issues that pop up (as they on occasion do now), maybe it's overly optimistic to think they can be kept at bay

Maybe technology will be what saves us instead of dooms us, as you fear

I hope so

I don't see any real reason to believe that will be the case though

We'll see what happens with AI

but I'm not optimistic about our future

Especially if it will be controlled by corporations like Google

I mean, just imagine sophisticated AI and DARPA robots

get fucked humanoids

And you've got degenerates like me who can't wait to interface with those things...get all the implants...let them into my mind <:MadClown:583243630240727061>

I think the less "human" we become (with implants, etc.) the more easily controlled we will be

but again, I hope I'm wrong

Hehe seems like it's easy enough as it is ;) But sure, being dependent on "stuff" makes you dependent on the people who control the stuff

Even if it's just the electricity to power your futuristic virtual reality masturbation cocoon

right, if they control your electricity and porn, that's bad news

PRoblem is, the situation will require a draconian response eventually because nothing reasonable is acceptable to 'the other side'

in the US for example, we need to just admit the suburban experiment is a huge problem, with so many spin-off externalities it's almost incomprehensible

AND it has real 'supervillians' at the root of the story, for added entertainment value

Cap and trade was killed, which was a fairly smart measure, and would have given some nice private sector incentive

Building cities to the scale of cars instead of people is a disaster. IT will get even worse as the baby boomers age out of driving

If we would assume that climate change would have such an impact, its already too late.
In the Netherlands for example, there's a climate change agreement that will reduce the temperature with 0.004% if not less, and will cost 100-millions if not billions. That agreement contains things like: more solar energy, less cars, everyone should get a heatpump instead of radiators, and a lot of other stuff as well.
Why spend so much time, effort and money to such a pointless and stupid agreement?

I'm not familiar with the exact agreement, if you cite it I can respond to it directly.

Otherwise, there are plenty of reasons those things are all good to have besides pure "temperature reduction" - one being a cleaner environment and more beautiful nature to enjoy in those places. Another being self-sufficiency and not needing to import as much stuff from others.

Your view and understanding of the topic seems pretty narrow, consider doing some more research.

You can also bet that if hundreds of millions or billions are being spent, there are probably economic benefits to these things (or else who would invest so much in them?)

@luduma

my opinion, the IPCC is milquetoast and they arleady know it's too late but are too afraid of the hysteria

The 'cost' shouldn't matter, since losing the planet is a total loss

This inability to price risk is a major issue in many areas of life, climate change being one of the most egregious because of the impact

Low wattage world is certainly doable, we just have to build the mechanical devices that allow much less energy input to get the same result, mostly for convenience

Green New Deal is weak sauce there too, probably for the same reasons as the IPCC

Ironically, some of the people who pray for the return of masculinity are also against the policies that would make it more attractive(more human labor, less energy usage)

https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/06/28/national-climate-agreement-the-netherlands

Its quite long

That's the agreement translated itself, here's the govs official summary: https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2019/06/28/climate-deal-makes-halving-carbon-emissions-feasible-and-affordable

I don't understand how a person looks at something like this and says "Why spend so much time, effort and money to such a pointless and stupid agreement?"

It's interesting that you pointed out "0.004% if not less" temperature reduction (not sure where you got that exact value from, but lets say it's factual) and not the 49% greenhouse gas emission reduction

If I was more suspicious of you, I'd say you cherry picked something that looked intentionally "small"

That's a bold intiative, 49% of 1990 levels

The Dutch will figure it out, they have no choice lol

Can't lie, Dutch Women #1