But the fact that people can be so easily manipulated like this is also part of reason why I said I've lost faith in humanity. The rise of Nazi Germany has shown us all that people can be duped into hating and committing heinous atrocities against one another with just the right amount of persuasion, and the fact that people can just let someone like Hitler come into power terrifies the hell out of me. — Mr Bee

I wouldn’t lose faith. I’d be on the right side of history and do all we can to fight it. Hitler eventually got his ass kicked— and was persuasive, yes, but only because the German people were desperate and angry, and not enough stood up to the rise of nazism.

History repeats itself. I see us as coming out of the new gilded age, or perhaps the 1920s. The result will depend on us: do we fall into authoritarianism, like Germany did, or do we go the way of trust-busting and the New Deal — or even the movements of the 30s and 60s.

I’ve been learning more about the labor movement of the 1930s lately. Fascinating and little-known history there. So much attention is given to the 60s (not unjustifiably), but the 30s set the stage for those movements in many ways, with oppressed people (workers) joining together and causing real pressure on those with their hands on the levers of power.

We’ll have to do this again. It involves solidarity, unions, strikes— which means overcoming differences and (gasp) practicing love and empathy and understanding— which, as we know from psychotherapy — are the key conditions that facilitate change and growth.

What is needed is a bloody technological revolution! Can we do it? Necessity is the mother of invention. — Agent Smith

Yes, let's not do what needs to be done and wait for the invention and implementation of things currently not existing!

I wish people would stop pretending science will solve everything, which is something other people do, after all, so they have an excuse not to make the necessary sacrifices themselves, which we're all going to have to do.

It seems we're getting ever closer to the real cause of all our problems viz. ourselves; some call it human nature I believe.

A bad workman blames his tools (machines)

The key to our salvation then is the clichéd judicious use of carbon-fuelled machines!

Copy that! Merci!

We are certainly experiencing the consequences of some people's actions. Yes it does seem futile; yes it is hard to be optimistic; yes some people have lost faith in humanity. — Bitter Crank

Are the people to blame for this? The power imbalance corresponds to level of responsibility, in my view -- and the imbalance is very, very skewed towards the wealthy. — Xtrix

I agree with these statements.

I'm not sure if and I are saying exactly the same thing, but I believe so.

Our point of view here is considering humanity as a whole including its elites, just as anthropologists do the same for past society's. Nearly all societies have hierarchy and elites, more or less inequality (from brutal slaving to mostly symbolic differences in wealth and power).

When anthropologists consider the reasons for a society's "success" or "failure", be it defined as basic survival or then imposing or resisting hegemonic power, the elites are simply one component in the analysis. Certainly they are "more to blame" than the less powerful individually, but if we agree the less powerful could easily unite and topple the elites at any moment ... then collectively the less powerful have more responsibility.

However, in terms of simply evaluating prospects of a society, the blame game is irrelevant to that. If a society fails, who's to blame is a followup question to how and why the society failed (certainly elites are an important factor, but not the only one).

To summarise, and this is where perhaps I diverge with in terms of assigning things to human nature, by faith in humanity, at least speaking for myself, I must be honest and recognise my faith in my youth was in this particular humanity, elites and all, overcoming our differences and failings at least enough to avoid a climate disaster.

I truly had in my mind the "we did it" moment. Truly believed the elites were genuinely divided on this question of the destruction of the planet and enough elites and enough of everyone else could and would band together for what no one can deny: the destruction of the planet's living systems is not a good thing and we should avoid it.

And, perhaps, if we simply had more time (and, hopefully, we do have more time than it appears now) the "day, indeed, would come".

But today, it at least feels, time has run out on this humanity.

Perhaps there will be other humanities in the future, who learn from our mistakes and misdeeds and indifference, and truly cherish and care for the crumbs of life; that fall from our table of plenty.

And the bodies are already starting to pile up, even if we consider only humans and ignore the 85% loss in wild animal biomass.

Perhaps the most succinct way to express my point of view here, is my contention is that to that to say there's still hope to avoid disaster is to say the pile of bodies we already have doesn't count, and we'll start counting later for some reason.

Of course, I would agree we must do our best regardless of the likely outcome.

A moral imperative does not conveniently go away simply because the goal is unlikely to be achieved.

But in terms of evaluating prospects, certainly seems to me now that we'd need a miracle to preserve anything remotely resembling "normal" and our precious "civilisation".

It's why I've moved away from group goals to personal goals. I'll be dammed if I'm contributing any further.

It seems we're getting ever closer to the real cause of all our problems viz. ourselves; some call it human nature I believe. — Agent Smith

But today, it at least feels, time has run out on this humanity. — boethius

to say there's still hope to avoid disaster is to say the pile of bodies we already have doesn't count, and we'll start counting later for some reason. — boethius

But in terms of evaluating prospects, certainly seems to me now that we'd need a miracle to preserve anything remotely resembling "normal" — boethius

I'll be dammed if I'm contributing any further. — Benkei

Another tactic that gets deliberately perpetuated is the sense of hopelessness and helplessness. "I can't do anything; It's too big; nothing will change anyway; it's already over." This is true not only of climate change but of many other issues; it was true for women's rights and civil rights and gay rights.

When we start seeing things as hopeless, and then start attributing the causes to "human nature," as if this were an inevitable outgrowth of genetics, we conveniently remove ourselves from doing anything about it -- things that involve interacting with others, things that are hard.

Joe Manchin sinking this legislation is a big blow, but not unexpected. On October 15th, 2021, it was already over. That's when he gutted the CEPP. It was clear then to me it was over -- I wrote about it on this forum. It should have been clear sooner -- for example, when the Exxon executive all but said Manchin is "our guy" and nothing will happen, in the spring of 2021.

So this isn't a huge shock. There's ways around all of this -- around the Supreme Court, around Congress. The solutions are not only technological -- which is happening slowly (the cost of renewables, the rise of EVs, etc) -- but also involves the labor movement. We see unionizations and strikes happening all over the place, for the last several years in fact. We've lowered our potential outcomes from 3.0-4.0 degree C to between 2.0-2.7 degree C. Not great, but a real improvement. We have younger people coming into power who are very aware of the stakes (even to the point of "climate anxiety"), out there protesting in the streets.

Nothing ever comes as gifts from above. Ever. When our institutions and our leaders fail, we work harder to circumvent them and create a crisis for them. I don't see any alternative beyond giving up and guaranteeing the worst case happens.

Nothing ever comes as gifts from above. Ever. When our institutions and our leaders fail, we work harder to circumvent them and create a crisis for them. I don't see any alternative beyond giving up and guaranteeing the worst case happens. — Xtrix

Once the number of Homo sapiens on the planet is severely reduced due to the consequences of climate change -- as is bound to happen in the coming decades or at best centuries -- the forces driving CC will then progressively abate. It may take a few thousand years for the climate to cool down though. There are no short term solution that I can see.

Once the number of Homo sapiens on the planet is severely reduced due to the consequences of climate change -- as is bound to happen in the coming decades or at best centuries -- the forces driving CC will then progressively abate. — Olivier5

There are no short term solution that I can see. — Olivier5

There are plenty of solutions, and people working very hard at those solutions -- and making progress. All while being told that there "are not solutions," that we're already doomed, that there's nothing we can do except continue with the status quo because leaders won't listen and corporations are too powerful, etc. The typical defeatist, hopelessness-encouraging bullshit you can see daily in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

So sure, we can go with your narrative and thus justify doing nothing. I'm sure people argued the exact same way when it came to slavery, child labor, the oppression of women, the rise of Nazism, etc. That's a choice. The alternative is to do hard work, in the tradition of the movements I mentioned above -- workers rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. -- and shift the direction we're going in, and rapidly. There's no reason it can't happen -- none.

There are plenty of solutions, and people working very hard at those solutions -- and making progress. All while being told that there "are not solutions," that we're already doomed, that there's nothing we can do except continue with the status quo because leaders won't listen and corporations are too powerful, etc. The typical defeatist, hopelessness-encouraging bullshit you can see daily in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

So sure, we can go with your narrative and thus justify doing nothing. — Xtrix

I'm not trying to "justify doing nothing". I'm just realizing that there is a fairly high chance our civilization will fall, whatever we do at this stage. It's more a question of when and how.

If we had acted decisively two or three decades ago, i.e. if the US had not fought tooth and nail against Kyoto and other agreements (including of course the WSJ), then maybe we would have had some chance of averting the worse global effects.

A miracle may still happen, I guess. But at this stage, to prepare for the worst is perfectly rational. While still hoping for the best of course, and still trying to avert the worst.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre ni de réussir pour persévérer.

When I talk about being damned to contribute, I mean I refuse to be part of the problem. I use about a quarter of the energy the previous owners did and about 50% of the gas and I don't even have solar panels yet. The electricity I use goes to a 100% renewable energy provider (and not because they traded carbon certificates) and the gas supplier offsets CO2 I use by planting trees. In the energy saving area, I'm happy to advise anyone who asks. I've done alot of research in which area of Europe is most likely to easily return to rural farming that if close enough to the Netherlands that I can regularly travel there to prepare something my grandchildren can escape to when it's required.

What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail.

Another tactic that gets deliberately perpetuated is the sense of hopelessness and helplessness. "I can't do anything; It's too big; nothing will change anyway; it's already over." — Xtrix

Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything".

I repeat several times that it remains a moral imperative to do what we can, and also what we do now will have a large effect on how much damage we end up doing.

However, it is simply reality that we can not avoid severe damages, which have already happened. 85% reduction in animal biomass is incredible level of damage to life.

This is true not only of climate change but of many other issues; it was true for women's rights and civil rights and gay rights. — Xtrix

There's a few differences with these comparisons that may help elucidate my point.

The transatlantic slavery trade and American slavery was going on for hundreds of years before it was abolished (not to say slavery elsewhere or at other times was less bad, but just to focus on one particular sequence of events). There's already a large amount of damage and suffering that has been perpetrated, that obviously people against slavery recognised. The amount of suffering and social damage transatlantic slavery caused over hundreds of years is truly immense.

Certainly, for many against slavery, the "institution" seemed so powerful, the madness going on so long and the suffering so enormous that it would feel at times hopeless. And put yourself in the shoes of people who opposed slavery hundreds of years before it was eventually abolished.

And, here's the point, no matter how overwhelming the suffering is and the danger of that inspiring helplessness rather than action, simply denying the reality of the suffering of slavery doesn't help. Pretending that "slavery isn't so bad" to make the issue more emotionally approachable I think you would agree is not a good strategy for anti-slavery work.

The difference with climate change, is that we had the potential to avoid these damages.

So, a better analogy would be people who acted to try to avoid slavery, transatlantic or otherwise, starting in the first place, or avoid one of the various genocides.

Obviously they failed. Now, doesn't mean their actions were useless, or "hopeless" in the sense they should not have acted.

However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact.

Policies were easily available to avoid severe consequences of climate change. The thing to do now is limit the damages, but it is simply reality to recognise the failure to avoid the entire disaster in the first place.

I'm not trying to "justify doing nothing". — Olivier5

A miracle may still happen, I guess. — Olivier5

hoping for the best of course — Olivier5

Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something.

Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything". — boethius

It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread. I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway.

What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail. — Benkei

I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still.

But it's really not the case. We've already brought projected emissions down a great deal. Attention and movements have begun to form, the next generation is very concerned, and people are now seeing and living with the effects of inaction as we speak. It's estimated that about 3% of US GDP a year would get us to where we need to be. That's hardly impossible.

However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact. — boethius

The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.

I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.

That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action.

All we had to do to prevent climate change was to follow Aristotle's advice: aureum mediocritas (the golden mean) or nec quid nimis (nothin' to excess). These simple rules, if followed in the right way, would have worked like a charm - no wars, no global warming, no poverty, no nothin'!

Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.

Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws.

I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still. — Xtrix

Yeah no. I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain. So we might solve global warming of I'm very optimistic but that won't really solve anything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

For humanity, having a footprint smaller than the planet's biocapacity is a necessary condition for sustainability. After all, ecological overuse is only possible temporarily. A country that consumes more than 1.73 gha per person has a resource demand that is not sustainable world-wide if every country were to exceed that consumption level simultaneously. Countries with a footprint below 1.73 gha per person might not be sustainable: the quality of the footprint may still lead to net long-term ecological destruction. If a country does not have enough ecological resources within its own territory to cover its population's footprint, then it runs an ecological deficit and the country is termed an ecological debtor. Otherwise, it has an ecological reserve and it is called a creditor. — Wiki

Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something. — Xtrix

By all mean do something. I am doing something too. As for things turning around quickly... I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. — Xtrix

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions?

I wish people would stop pretending science will solve everything, which is something other people do, after all, so they have an excuse not to make the necessary sacrifices themselves, which we're all going to have to do. — Benkei

While I don't necessarily think science will solve everything, it's a better option than expecting everyone to suddenly come to a realization that they're destroying the environment and doing the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. We tried the latter for 40 years and that got us nowhere. People just aren't gonna make the necessary sacrifices because it involves them doing something inconvenient. It's why NIMBYism is a thing.

At least technological advances are immune to inconsistency of governments. If renewables and EVs are made more affordable and economically competitive (which fortunately it seems to be getting to in recent years) then it doesn't matter what kind of science denying buffoon the voters decide to elect into office. Businesses will decide to decarbonize of their own accord.

Doing nothing isn't really an option and expecting scientific solutions to what in essence are socioeconomic systems that are unsustainable is misplaced scientism. Most people would be fine with a lower standard of living if wealth would be much more equitably distributed and it's not average people who are the problem here anyway. Living in the 50s-60s wasn't bad and that's the standard we'd more or less be talking about.

I'm ensuring for my kids as well, a way to escape the consequences, which in my view are inevitable.

I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.

I mean, it'd be nice if all sides acknowledged the problem and just had differing approaches to solving it. In a world that made sense that would've been the case. I'd love it if both the right and the left had debates over whether we should decarbonize using nuclear or renewables for example. Unfortunately that isn't the world that we live in, and I don't know how much longer we all are gonna live in this world anyways if this is how we're gonna act.

I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all. — Mr Bee

Oh, if I had my way, I'd have climate denying politicians and one-percenters summarily executed for murder.

Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea. — Agent Smith

I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them.

I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain. — Benkei

Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies, I'm interested in real solutions to a real problem -- solutions we already have and, if there's sufficient popular pressure, can employ immediately. Renewable energy is sustainable. If we have to wait around for something much more drastic, then we're likely doomed.

But we don't. That's a long-term project, and a necessary one, but not at all a requirement for this particular issue. If you're convinced it is, fine -- that's your prerogative and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from acting accordingly. But I see little evidence for it.

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions? — Olivier5

Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. Since the corporations own the government (Joe Manchin a good example), the only way things change in time is if the corporations give the "OK," and that only happens if they're facing a real crisis. One way to create that crisis is workers walking off the job. With the energy industry, that's going to be hard -- but not impossible. Other industries can help as well -- Amazon, Apple, Starbucks. We're seeing unions pop up everywhere, against great odds. It's very exciting and inspiring indeed.

Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.

Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.

Regarding unions:

After decades of decline in the United States, unions may be poised for a comeback.
Every month seems to bring more promising news for organized labor. Workers at Starbucks have organized roughly 100 stores from coast to coast since last fall. REI employees formed the outdoor retailer’s very first union. Amazon employees defied all the odds and won an 8,000-worker union election in New York City. And an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland, became the first to unionize last month.

Just 1 in 10 U.S. workers now belongs to a union, down from roughly 1 in 3 in the period following World War II. Yet the labor movement is showing more muscle now than it has in years. Emboldened by a tight labor market and two years of toiling through a pandemic, workers are succeeding in organizing companies that have staunchly resisted unionization, and many of them are doing it practically on their own.

--Reference

Delay as the New Denial: The Latest Republican Tactic to Block Climate Action

You'd think it was something out of the Onion after reading Graham's statement:

The party has largely moved beyond denying the existence of climate change but continues to oppose dramatic action to halt it, worried about the short-term economic consequences.

One hundred million Americans from Arizona to Boston are under heat emergency warnings, and the drought in the West is nearing Dust Bowl proportions. Britain declared a climate emergency as temperatures soared above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and parts of blistering Europe are ablaze.

But on Capitol Hill this week, Republicans were warning against rash action in response to the burning planet.

“I don’t want to be lectured about what we need to do to destroy our economy in the name of climate change,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

One Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, last week blocked what could have been the country’s most far-reaching American response to climate change. But lost in the recriminations and finger-pointing is the other side of the aisle: All 50 Republicans in the Senate have been as opposed to decisive action to confront planetary warming.
Few Republicans in Congress now outwardly dismiss the scientific evidence that human activities — the burning of oil, gas and coal — have produced gases that are dangerously heating the Earth.

But for many, denial of the cause of global temperature rise has been replaced by an insistence that the solution — replacing fossil fuels over time with wind, solar and other nonpolluting energy sources — will hurt the economy.

In short, delay is the new denial.

I think this further nails it:

Overwhelmingly, Republicans on Capitol Hill say that they believe that the United States should be drilling and burning more American oil, gas and coal, and that market forces would somehow develop solutions to the carbon dioxide that has been building in the atmosphere, trapping heat like a blanket around a sweltering Earth.

Exactly. So no more outright denial -- just that we can't do anything about it, it's hopeless, China and India need to do more and so anything we do won't matter anyway, etc. Why put ourselves at a "disadvantage"? Why be the bigger person?

It's as good as outright denial. In both cases, the outcome is the same: do nothing. Keep drilling. What else justifies this? The "market," of course! Market fundamentalism. The wonderful market, that will automatically guide the world in the right direction. Whatever the market decides, that's the way forward. It's like consulting magic bones.

Like I've been saying, the "let's do nothing" crowd continues to say that we should do nothing at all.

Yes. Here's another doozy:

So it has gone with the Republican Party, where warnings of a catastrophe are mocked as hyperbole, where technologies that do not exist on a viable scale, such as “carbon capture and storage” and “clean coal,” are hailed as saviors. At the same time, those that do, such as wind and solar power and electric vehicles, are dismissed as unreliable and overly expensive. American leadership on a global problem is seen as a fool’s errand, kneecapping the domestic economy while Indian and Chinese coal bury America’s good intentions in soot.

“When China gets our good air, their bad air’s got to move,” Herschel Walker, a former football star and now a Republican candidate in Georgia for the Senate, explained last week. “So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we’ve got to clean that back up.”

Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

We are living through the greatest tragic comedy of our time.

I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them. — Xtrix

I see. What's your theory then about why we're in this mess, climate change and all?

A little good news:

https://www.eenews.net/articles/patrick-michaels-influential-climate-denier-dies-at-72/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-planet&utm_content=20220720&utm_term=The%20Weekly%20Planet%20-%20USA%20ONLY

Not supposed to cheer people’s deaths, of course, but when you think of how many people will suffer and die for one person’s stupidity and corruption, their passing is a deliverance.

Greed.

Good post.

but if we agree the less powerful could easily unite and topple the elites at any moment ... then collectively the less powerful have more responsibility. — boethius

I don't agree that the less powerful could "easily unite" or easily "topple the elite". True, it has happened in the past, but not often. To a small extent, a move in that direction just happened in Sri Lanka (but only a couple of heads rolled -- the power elite is still intact there). It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.

the blame game is irrelevant — boethius

You are quite right. It is irrelevant because the elites and the commoners, being the same species, are similarly endowed. We do not seem to be able to act on risks that are not immediate. We are not even good at recognizing and measuring risk. The momentum of the industrial revolution has driven the use of fossil fuel, and elites and commoners all welcomed the labor saving which coal, steam, oil, and gas (turned into on-line energy) made possible.

Life has been hard for us for most of our history, requiring enormous amounts of labor, much of it miserable and life-shortening. Science and technology have made life easier for many (not all, though).

If the James Webb cameras were to spot a large human-life-ending meteor heading in our direction, with arrival time about 30 years into the future and a 75% likelihood of a catastrophic impact, the world would not unite in laboring to build the device which would deflect the meteor. There would be bickering and dithering over plans, denial, contention, possibly major destabilization--possibly up until the rock arrived or barely missed us. Various people would definitely get blamed, no matter what. Why?

Why? Because we are not perfectly evolved primates. Yes, we do have lots of hard capabilities, but we also have lots of hard limitations. Maybe we can all agree that the James Webb Telescope is a marvel, but we have not all agreed that we should get vaccinated against Covid 19 (and other diseases); that we should wear masks in public; that we should stay home if we feel sick, and so on. Those are easy behavior changes.

Greed — Xtrix

:up:

Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas.