Cruel

Those are rookie numbers. Let's get to work, boys!

When the state fully controls your property, it's not private property and thus not capitalistism. It's not socialism either, because they still give deference to the original "private" owner.

China is a perfect example of how a fascist country would operate, honestly. It's frankly annoying that people don't routinely call it a fascist state and instead call it communist.

Fascism is a modern iteration of an old problem. Not even the worst version of it. Plenty of theocracies and empires in history promoted similar strong group/national identity paired with subjugation of individuals to an authoritarian state.

And fascism is not even compatible with capitalism as it requires state control over industry. It would be more compatible with socialism except that it's not nationalizing industry for the benefit of the working class explicitly, just the benefit of the nation/state.

Implementing climate control will be costly and is still controversial, especially proposed solutions that require polluting the stratosphere with chemicals.

I'm still optimistic about geoengineering research.

Of course, nobody will want to foot that bill until they're staring the threat in the eyes.

It's common knowledge that humans are accelerating climate change, they're not the sole source of it. 🤷

You're right, and there is no consensus. Companies, and even current governments, are ill-equipped for solving long-term problems. Especially a problem that won't be a net harm for like 60 years.

My point was that all that money could've gone to a real long-term solution which requires a lot of research (and which humanity will need to finance eventually anyways). Reminds me of people who spend more money on car repairs than what the car is worth. They see a mechanic bill of $400 and think it's cheaper than buying another vehicle. It gets it running for another 4 months. Then a dozen bills later...

"Another 4 months" for current climate change policies is like "another 50 years"... being generous.

Reducing carbon emissions is a temporary solution, buying a couple thousand more years. Taken to its most extreme, it requires human industry to ultimately cease and thus make it even more difficult to solve the problem permanently.

That would help, but definitely not stop climate change.

If people willingly choose to shorten their life, I don't consider it a problem.

Now, lying and manipulating people into choosing it, similar to what the cigarette industry did, is obviously a problem.

But at this point, everyone knows cigarettes and processed foods are unhealthy. People just don't care.

Which is...?