It is good to see that you agree that the strategy I have outlined here is effective and appropriate if destructive climate change is otherwise likely to destroy human civilization this century. In particular, your penultimate paragraph states: "This is the correct strategy in some situations, like it's WW2 and you are being invaded by a fascist nation and the obvious response is to just try to fight the invaders with everything you've got."
In fact, I think that 'business as usual' will drive climate change that is far more destructive to human life on Earth than any fascist invasion. You clearly disagree that the threat of catastrophic climate change is that dire. We will have to agree to disagree on that. I am sure it would be futile to debate that issue with you here.
Nevertheless, it is gratifying that you see the value of the kind of strategy I have outlined for dealing with threats that endanger civilization.
It is good to see that you agree that the strategy I have outlined here is effective and appropriate if destructive climate change is otherwise likely to destroy human civilization this century. In particular, your penultimate paragraph states: "This is the correct strategy in some situations, like it's WW2 and you are being invaded by a fascist nation and the obvious response is to just try to fight the invaders with everything you've got."
In fact, I think that 'business as usual' will drive climate change that is far more destructive to human life on Earth than any fascist invasion. You clearly disagree that the threat of catastrophic climate change is that dire. We will have to agree to disagree on that. I am sure it would be futile to debate that issue with you here.
Nevertheless, it is gratifying that you see the value of the kind of strategy I have outlined for dealing with threats that endanger civilization.