I disagree. We've had all necessary technology all along. It's exactly the lack of moral responsibility that's holding us back. Fighting climate change is more akin to the civil rights movement than to the Manhattan project.
I don’t disagree that we have the technology to emit less pollution simply by doing less (the moral decisions in this hypothetical), but the issue is that most (perhaps nearly all) people in the world don’t agree with your morality.
This makes technologies which bypass this problem far more feasible, even if they’re further out from actually solving the problem. They might have the potential to get there, whereas morality probably doesn’t.
Agriculture is a major source of pollution for example, but it’s how everyone eats. The fact that most people in the world are poor makes this problem extremely hard to solve... How do you argue morality with someone who is just trying to feed themselves? If you want them to use less fertilizer, irrigate less, ship their product shorter distances, etc for the sake of climate change, well... Good luck. Now try telling them to stop driving, or use less electricity, or...
> How do you argue morality with someone who is just trying to feed themselves?
Don't change the subject. I am not arguing morality with someone who's trying to feed themselves. I am arguing morality with someone who flies to tech conferences several times a year, drives around in a huge SUV, and screams bloody murder when someone else proposes maybe a carbon tax or something. And then blames it all on poor people.
Poor people are not the problem. Rich people are the problem.
You’re right, that is a glaring issue and to me it’s indisputable. It cuts all ways though. Targeting the rich alone just isn’t sufficient. I didn’t mean to imply poor people are the only problem at all - just that pleading for moral decisions with the bulk of the earth’s population would be futile.
One of my greatest fears is that I’m right, so I genuinely hope I’m not.
I totally share your fears. I am afraid we are already too late. Though, pleading for moral decisions seems to have worked in the past. Again, see civil rights movement, women's suffrage etc. Let's just hope it will work again, and that it won't be too late.
Those are very good points, you're right. Here's hoping.
I guess the best thing we can do is normalize these behaviours by making the moral decisions ourselves and encouraging the same within our family and peer groups. Just like those movements before us. Stop flying, stop buying things wrapped in plastic upon plastic upon plastic, cycle more places, eat more plants and less meat, etc – the 'drip in the ocean' strategy might be all we have, but you're right... It has helped before. There's no sense in discouraging that.
Beef is the problem. Beef is not a necessary food. It can also cause health issues. The fact that it emits a lot of carbon makes meat a thing to work on.
There's just been a months-long Europe-wide experiment re reducing emissions which should yield some interesting data, and the early reports do seem to support what you're saying.
Your argument is a different one already, yes we're definitely not doing much against climate change, and yes some moral responsibility to fight this global issue is badly needed.
But that does not validate the pseudo-moral arguments blaming technology & industry like the one above, this is guaranteed to fail.
