.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Generic Confusion

When you leave, my blog just fades to grey
Nu ma nu ma iei, nu ma nu ma nu ma iei


News? Check. Politics? Check. Music? Check. Random thoughts about life? Check. Readership? Ummm.... let me get back to you on that. Updated when I feel like I have something to say, and remember to post it.

Thursday, January 03, 2019

The Thanos solution

Thanos, from the Marvel comic universe, has the solution to global warming: kill off half the world's population.

What, too far?

Well, global warming is an existential threat, right?  Everything should be on the table?

Let's define the existential threat.  It assumes the following four points are true:

  1. The earth is warming
  2. A significant portion of this warming is attributable to human activity
  3. Warming will have a catastrophic effect on the world
  4. There are actions humans can take to reduce warming in such a way that it is no longer catastrophic.
If 1. isn't true, then there's no problem,  If 3. isn't true, then there's little problem.  If 2. isn't true, or if 4. isn't true, then our focus has to be on mitigating the impacts.

So you want the world to do something major.  Thanos is off the table, but what about a mT (millithanos)?  A millithanos would be around 3.5 million dead.  And since any solution to global warming would involve keeping the third world in poverty, stopping the economic growth of nations like India and China, and sending developed nations into an economic depression, I could see quickly reaching 3.5 million additional deaths over the null scenario of doing nothing and letting economic growth happen worldwide.

So you better be sure.

Why, specifically, do I bring up Thanos?  Because one thing Thanos promises is to make it fair.  Half of the universe, no favoritism.

We do have something in America's past that could compare to the efforts that would be needed to combat global warming: the shared sacrifice on the home front during World War II.  Rationing, recycling, putting money into war bonds, going without new consumer goods.  We did it in the past.

Could we do it again?  I fear we're too selfish.  But if it were to happen, it would again have to be an example of shared sacrifice.

And that's why it's a huge problem for liberal politicians to live in mansions, for celebrities to fly in private jets, for environmentalist groups to hold conferences to discuss how to deal with global warming at five star resorts on another continent.  Because that shows that the loudest voices have no intention of making this a shared sacrifice.  If you want to convince people that global warming is an existential threat that requires a response like World War II, you have to show that you're willing to sacrifice.  Show some leadership!