zlacker

Hard disagree.

Degrowth is the only reasonable future if you understand the big picture: it's all about energy. Climate change and biodiversity loss are consequences of what humans do with abundant energy. Again: biodiversity loss is not due to CO2 at all, yet we are currently living a mass extinction. Replace fossils with nuclear fusion, you may solve climate change, but you will still be in a mass extinction.

Now let's be honest, we don't know a technology today that can replace fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are not unlimited (we still have enough to finish messing up the climate, unfortunately, but we are around the peak of production globally right now). So anyway, the days of a world with abundant energy are soon over, you've got to deal with it. That's called degrowth.

Either we go into a controlled degrowth, or we go into uncontrolled degrowth (that's poverty, global instability, wars, famines, ...).

>>palata+(OP)
That's pretty much it. And that's the elephant in the room, or 'an uncomfortable truth'. The problem is that very few people want to admit it, and even fewer people want to act on it and even fewer people than that are acting on it (and those are not usually near the seats of power).

Uncontrolled degrowth it is, for now. You forgot pandemics by the way, those are one way in which the loss of biodiversity and the ever increasing way in which humans force their way into animal territory is manifesting. This isn't exactly news either but I have to say to see it so vividly displayed still took me by surprise.