What are our chances of survival for a long time?

[Anomalocaris]

Why do you think there is hope?

There's always hope, Macoleco. If we're still around in a million years, we won't be the same species, but at least we'll still have surviving descendants. Our record has been muddling through the middle between best and worst case scenarios. We're going to have to weather some very tough times due to climate change (aware of pun but it's not the point) that we have failed to take sufficient action on in time, but it's not an extinction event for humans, nor will it end scientific and technological progress, and that could kill us all off, or it could save us. Hundreds of millions, even billions of us could die and our species would still be going strong.

The main source of resistance to climate change action is cost, and as it gets worse, we'll have no choice but to start paying those costs. It will be way more expensive than if we had acted sooner, but even the USA will do the right thing after it's tried everything else. I think our biggest near-term existential risk is an attempt at climate change mitigation gone wrong. But we could lose 99% of our population and still bounce back.

Our species will be the last large mammals to go in the last big extinction. Hopefully this one isn't it and we'll be around for the big asteroid hit or whatever is coming. I've been hearing our doom is just around the corner my whole life, I'm not giving up hope now.

But it doesn't look good.

The main source of resistance to climate change action is not cost.    It is cold calculation by those who command wealth and capital that they can easily mitigate the consequences of climate change on their own wealth and capital, and their chances are good they will come through largely unscathed.    So they are loath to contribute the mitigating of the consequences of climate change on others who do not have the resources to weather climate change and come through largely unscathed.



This is the reason why there is such irreconcilable gap in the propaganda put out by both sides:

The side which believe there should be a collective responsibility to tackle collective problems, particularly when those who do not stand to suffer gained their wealth and security through means which directly contributed to the risk and suffering faced by others,  realizes the right wing does not share any such morality.   So it is necessary to exaggerate the consequences of unmitigated climate change until it seems everyone stand to directly llose a lot.   Only then can the right wing well off be persuaded to chip in, as this side's morality stipulates they should.


The side that believes it is a free for all and those who have should be under no obligation to help those who have not, knows something like French revolution might ensue if their moral point of view is made clear to every have not.   So they must defend their unwillingness to help on some basis other than "well it's your problem cuz I will be lounging in my personal tropical island".   Hence they defend their unwillingness to contribute to the mitigating of the risk and alliviatring the suffering of others by shouting down the very fact that there is indeed risk and suffer to others that results directly from how they have gained their own wealth and capital in the first place, and pretend all is well so there is no need to share.


It is generally a rule that behind every noble sounding principle there is subterfuge.

The irony with many humans is we always think morality will work better on other people than it has worked on us.